Sorry, all, i seems to have gotten embedded in an argument and i reall
don't know what anyone is trying to say. I posted what I did in the spirit
of exchanging information but apparently that wasn't clear from my original
post. Sorry to have disturbed you.
tom bell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoffrey Gatza" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Poetry & Psych
> I find this discussion very interesting and Rebecca has pointed out
specific
> fundimental flaws in this work (bravo, well done indeed). I commend her
for
> her time and effort ... brilliant. But why has Tom not responded to this?
I
> am one of those poets who is aware of what the psych community is up to
but
> choose to read ______ journals becasue they are accurate reports of
poetry.
> Tom, tell your friend that I view these papers as kindly work to keep one
> employeed as a faculty member; however, when they have it right we'll come
> to see what they have.
>
> Geoffrey
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tom bell" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 10:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Poetry & Psych
>
>
> > I think perhaps the idea is that computers are one way of analysing
verbal
> > material and parsing is another. But we seem to have gotten sidetracked
> > from the original rquest for information about poetry and psychology?
Are
> > there other sources of information on the question?
> >
> > tom bell
|