>>
>To enter into a debate about the theoretical right or wrong-ness of a
>discussion forum brings into question its very existence.
That would be the point
There are a
>lot of very interesting things being asked of theory, however, can
>theory come up with the goods. I bought up my question in an attempt to
>get theory to engage in its sibling practice.
Fair enough, so you brought the question here in order to influence 'theoretical'
people, to get them to think about something that you feel they wouldn't usually
be thinking of. What kind of responses were you expecting?
>Without meaning to be too offensive but deal with it. This forum will
>never have the input of other forums but deriding the question that have
>been asked when you may not understand their intellectual frameworks is
>counter productive
>
I haven't heard anyone deriding the question. Asking why you bring something
to the list is NOT the same as saying that it shouldn't have been brought.
And while you aren't being offensive as such - your suppositions regarding the
intellectual frameworks understood by this list are interesting. Which frameworks
do you not expect people to understand? What do you think is the intellectual,
practical and professional profile of this list?
This is all a sneaky way of getting at a similar question to that which Cornelius
asked in the fall. What constitutes archaeological theory - how do you know
that something is archaeological theory? What do you expect from this list?
Sarah
*************************** ADVERTISEMENT ******************************
For ALL the latest Soccer news on your club, GAA sports results and the
latest on your F1 stars plus much more check out
http://sport.iol.ie/sport. Sport On-Line.... It's a passion
|