Subject:
For moderation - Re: Pop-ecology and two views of obfuscation
Date:
Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:45:23 EDT
From:
"Jim Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask]
>I completely agree with you (which perhaps, in turn, will make you
>happy--who knows) <s>, regardless of whether you happen to agree or
>disagree with the content of Chris's post about "pop-ecology" witch hunts
>of "anti-environmentalists." ginally *meant* to say by employing the
>ambiguous phrase, "some folks," was in that case intended to refer
>specifically to Chris Perley, then in my opinion the mark of clear(er)
>thinking is "to be able to say what you mean." Precisely. Call a spade a
>spade, so to speak. Then quit.
>
My fault. I appear not to have been -- or made myself -- clear. The
message I was replying to was but one of a series of long, rambling, and (I
thought) unclear (or even obfuscating ;-) messages on the subject. Since I
couldn't respond to all of them, that was the one I chose to respond to.
I guess I get lost easily in sentences with more than four or five comma
phrases in them, or of more than 35 words, or postings that go on and . . .
Anyway, by then, I wasn't able to decide whether to agree or disagree -- or
whether I should even bother. I suspect I should not have -- bothered, that
is.
Mea culpa.
[log in to unmask] - Tallahassee, FL
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|