> It is utterly ridiculous to think -- as Kelley does -- that one can
> criticize Sapir & Whorf by appealing to Weber!!!
>
>Yoshie
ahhh. if you would like to hurl baseless insults and willful misreadings even after i've politely corrected you and carrol and given you ample reason and room to rethink your initial misinterpretations, then let me respond in kind.
allow me to reiterate salient points which have not achieved sufficient velocity to do more than glance off your granite coated skull. first, you continually fail to demonstrate more than a passing knowledge of secondary accounts of Weber. In short, I find this display embarrassing for someone of your intellect and conclude you must be rather lazy, when it suits you. Second, it will not do to lift from authors and texts in ways that reveal either that the author is unfamiliar with Weber or that you are incapable of OR refuse to comprehend their work adequately. Third, that you continue to refer to double-entry book keeping reveals that you are not only ignorant of Weber, but also operating in some sort of delusional, hallucinatory state perhaps brought about by ingesting some bad egg salad. fourth, I am finding that, increasingly, with regard to your contributions, I would be more interested in the creative contributions found in the whirling swirl flushed by the drunk visiting the men's room at Denny's at 3 a.m. finally, I don't know why you troubled yourself to respond. You have nothing to contribute and it is clear that you haven't a clue what sword you have come to run yourself upon.
In the future, save yourself and the list the embarrassment of having to endure this shameless performance. Consider controlling your spasmic need typing practice by avoiding hitting "reply" in response to anything i type. If you cannot control these urges, I think it would benefit discussions here if you would make sure more than your brain stem is operational when you do it.