 |
 |
On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:32:08 -0000, Lawrence wrote: >My intentions, which I did not fulfill completely, were quite clear to >everyone and I was not told then that I was wrong. I was not told then that >the proposal was "dubious". - OK, some listownerly mea culpas in order: Lawrence said what he intended to do, and if I'd had my eyes open I could've spake - but - not for the first time - my eye/speech cordination has been found faulty. Sorry for any offence caused to Lawrence in this. However, I do think it's important to keep the list as a place of *public dialogue*, i.e. dialogue with other members of the list, and to post *part of* a correspondence on it is potentially misleading, open to misinterpretation. I can't make such listownerly opinions stick in any real terms, still less "censor" any member of the list. It's a matter of judgement, and at the risk of sounding olde worlde I think we serve oursleves best by showing restraint in such things, even in the face of adversity. It's not about "standing together" or not - thankthelord - it's about critical fairness, need to maintain (wherein, I believe, we should set high standards and stand together). The present case is on a specific article, and what it does and doesn't say, and indeed its critical fairness. So far Duncan's published a piece elsewhere; any of us could have picked it up. Griffiths has sought to refute part of it, and used the list as a way of doing so because as I understand it other - more direct - means were closed to him. Other comments on the article - including responses from Duncan, or indeed Fletcher - would be welcome. Comments on any published articles are welcome. But comments on private correspondence to which the list is not party should, I feel, stay private. I should add that I've now seen a copy of the article (obtained under the terms of the copyright act, 1988, I hasten to add) and in my opinion the comments on it so far are admirably restrained. There is, I'd say, still scope for considerable critical exposure of the weaknesses the piece, should anyone think it worthwhile. RC %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%