Thanks to Doug for refocussing our attention on what Duncan actually
wrote, the substance of his article. I think this is where we should be
putting our activity, in the spirit of "factuality". For what it's worth,
I think Doug overestimates the serious contribution of the article, and
underestimates the spirit of sustained ill-nature which in my opinion
pervades it. I'm using each of those terms in a balanced way which I think
I could support from the text, and would like to do this in the future -
but as I've said (a) I've only just got the article (and I am aware of a
serious tendency to pronounce WITHOUT having read the whole shebang) and
(b) I'm seriously concerned about the role we're playing in *drawing
attention to* the offending piece, which is, in terms of availability, an
obscure piece in an insignificant publication: those reacting most
strongly to it are in danger of affording it "classic" - reprintable -
status which it simply doesn't deserve, and (c) the waters are now getting
pretty muddied with general bad temper and recrimination which does
nothing for anyone's case. Hopefully this will soon begin to clear, and a
more sustained, *useful* exchange can take place.
I'm NOT suggesting (and never have) that we don't comment on the piece and
its claims, but I AM suggesting that, love it or loath it, the best
response is a considered one, and I AM welcoming a contribution which I
see - perhaps prematurely - as the start of that process.
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|