Fair enough comment.
Again I am going to speak from my own circumstance. Yes theory is
personal, but theory is also all encompassing. One persons theory is
another persons practice etc. Thus this list is left with the potential
problem of ....... Is any one interested in my own personal ramblings?
This kind of thread will kill the faculties. You may dislike britarch
(and I also don't like the inanity) but it is a lively discussion from
all interested parties, some more informed than others.
To enter into a debate about the theoretical right or wrong-ness of a
discussion forum brings into question its very existence. There are a
lot of very interesting things being asked of theory, however, can
theory come up with the goods. I bought up my question in an attempt to
get theory to engage in its sibling practice.
Without meaning to be too offensive but deal with it. This forum will
never have the input of other forums but deriding the question that have
been asked when you may not understand their intellectual frameworks is
counter productive
Ant
-----Original Message-----
From: Arch-theory list is for international discussions, reviews, and
exchanges o [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sarah Cross
Sent: 27 February 2002 17:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: a stubborn woman (theoretically speaking)
Dear All,
Ok, I have nearly as many Arch Theory posts in this account as I do
offers from dodgy Nigerian Businessmen. And there are three interesting
threads I'd like to reply to. Things are looking up. But still my
question is unanswered. Is there something about archaeological theory
which makes it unsuitable for mailing lists?
Tobias says perhaps theory is dead, Sarah contradicts this but then it
remains to be seen whether any of these interesting threads gets
discussed in a satisying manner.
Cantanze suggested that I should first introduce myself. What do we need
to know about each other to have fruitful theoretical discussions? Do
we need to know background, age, class, gender, ...
Antony says he can't speak outside his circumstance. But why did he
bring the discussion of recording over from Britarch? What would this
group give to the discussion that he can't get from Britarch? (BTW not
to be overly pedantic
- but Hodder has been at Stanford for at least 3 years - he can't really
count as British now, or can he?)
I think that there is a problem talking to an amorphous group about
theory because its fragmented and personal and what's theory to one
person is practice to another. We can write formally about it, and we
can talk to friends, but there is a discomfort with this inbetween
position that mailing lists hold.
Was this list ever lively? (and I agree that it would be awful if it
were like Britarch which floods mailboxes terribly) I've only been here
for about two and a half years so perhaps it used to be different. I
stay subscribed out of a desire for intellectual company - a hope for a
different point of view than I'd hear usually. (and because it doesn't
flood my mailbox)
prove me wrong by running with the threads. But I'm interested in the
question anyhow. Sarah
*************************** ADVERTISEMENT ******************************
For ALL the latest Soccer news on your club, GAA sports results and the
latest on your F1 stars plus much more check out
http://sport.iol.ie/sport. Sport On-Line.... It's a passion
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002
|