Daniel wrote:
> I suppose prudence and wisdom are some of the privilages of age and I have
> seen that i get too easily caught up in what i believe to be resiliance and
> persaverence; upholding the things i sincerely believe. I apologize to the
> entire group if i have been acting inappropriately. Though I will not, as I
> am sure none of you would, concede to Candice's remarks about my "ignorance"
> or any likewise comments that aim to down-grade my own intelligence. If many
> of you feel that i have little understanding about the problems involved in
> language theory and the mind, then so be it, but I would hardly expect any
> of you to sit back and accept attacks on your intelligence. I claimed that I
> had no idea about what i was saying in order to end the futile flow of
> discussion, but now I regret that I did seeing how it has prompted Candice
> to feel that she has the right to solidify her own account of who I am. It
> isn't pleasant Candice and I am sorry that you feel that way. In any case, I
> do sincerely hope that I will be able to continue being involved with this
> list.
Well, Daniel, I don't think you can complain if someone takes you at
your word when you admit to the list that you haven't a clue what you're
talking about--that you're unschooled in and uninformed about linguistics,
philosophy of language or mind, etc. Not that you're stupid, but that you're
"ignorant"--on your own account. Now that even your confessional post has
turned out to be a con, I don't put much stock in your apology either
("honestly," as you put it--curiously enough).
You're right, though, it's not "pleasant," and if my negative impression of
you has only been solidified as a result, you've no one to blame but
yourself. If you are "honestly" feeling contrite and apologetic toward the
list, how about giving it (and us) a rest now?
Thanks--
Candice
