Dear Colleen,
Thanks for your note.
I'm sorry that you think that my response is "all this stuff" that has to be
dealt with by "pacifying" somebody (me) who is raising matters that by
implication don't need to be raised.
You sound ever so slightly like an advisor to the Speaker of the House of
Commons who is in favour of discussion, just as long as the terms of the
discussion aren't challenged.
My own feeling that a critical discipline (e.g. 'critical geography) should
rather welcome critique rather than just feel sympathy for somebody who has
to deal with it.
Isn't it interesting that somebody can in good faith apparently
'misunderstand' the terms of reference of the CfP in the way that I did?
Couldn't those who call for papers learn something about carefully ensuring
that their call can't be "misunderstood"?
Since academics (unlike spindoctors) should be in the business of clear
communication, I would have thought my contribution might be welcomed as
positive....
Best wishes
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Colleen Bell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 May 2009 19:22
To: tom wengraf
Subject: RE: CfP ISA 2010, Panel on "Liberal interventionism and reflections
on the re-emergence of counterinsurgency" - complicity by language and
preoccupation?
see, your email response was very tactful, and seemed to have pacified him
:).
I don't agree with him that we need to change those terms, but happy to go
along with it if you think we should.
Sorry that you had to spend all that time dealing with this stuff.
Colleen
|