Nima
I began almost immediately to regret the tone of my last. I don't know if
this will be any better; but I'll try at any rate to explain myself
I found yours very patronising; but you may not have meant that at all.
I was thinking how unwelcoming mine in answer would seem if that were the
case, if you hadnt meant that tone.
So a few words only - relatively - more
> hm...i generally notice a fair bit of overcomplicating of things...
I found that to be patronising from the start. As I read, I thought: And
youre going to tell us all how easy it is, are you? Which you did.
But what you told us seemed insubstantial and your examples of Heaney and
Hendrix did not fill me with confidence.
> All this ere talk of different 'definitions', elitism, xp, yp, etc
etc...seems to be evolving into its own self-fuelling abstract academic
overextension....
I mistrusted _this ere talk_; still do.
Then you lumped it all together, some reference points from each into
_self-fuelling abstract academic
overextension...._ though we are opposed to each other to some degree... You
sure you need all those words
I expect I noticed my own contribution being rubbished; and it seemed to me
that you had *missed what I was saying, that I wasn't asking for definitions
in an academic way. I specifically spoke against that; and there you went
accusing me of it and even put "definition" in quotes after all I had said,
leaving me wondering whether you are disputing or not reading
L
|