My point is that to summarise a short paper is in essence to emasculate it,
in that every word that is there is a part of the message and to shorten it
fails to make the point.
It is like passing exams by memorising key notes only, you miss out so much.
Academic natural selection therefore favours those who have aquired the
ability to play a social game and tailor there output to what they expect to
get from it.
It is like the days when Latin was the universal scholarly language, and
that no-one who culd not speak latin would be capable of presenting a
scholarly argument, because no-one would listen to it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jonathan McNabb
> Sent: 17 September 2002 19:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Call for Papers: Disability Studies: Theory, Policy and
> Dear Larry
> I am finding it difficult to follow your arguments in relation to this
> discussion. It will be helpful if you clarify what you wish to say. I am
> sorry what you have written so far has not helped your case.
> I would be interested to know what you think because I believe what you
> wish to say might be of some importance.
> Jonathan McNabb
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.