>b) The challenger is told: you're just saying what we're saying. (This
>reply, in which Kelley specialized, is an implicit admission that
>Habermas had nothing to say but merely to repeat trivialities.)
you raise objections that failed to take account that _I_ had already anticipated and answered your questions -- in my post to charles regarding the claim that ken was engaged in bourgeois theorizing, a post to justin about how communication refers to social, symbolic interaction, etc. these were written BEFORE you even uttered a criticism.
additionally, re communicative ACTION, yesterday was the third time i had to correct you. the first, you might have missed, but the second you read and responded to a post where i corrected you. now, something is wrong carrol if you're going to continually harp on ken's use of the word if you refuse to take into consideration how it's being used. in translation, that matters. what is astounding that it hasn't once occured to you that it's a translation from the german and it might matter that we use it in a specific way, rather than anglicizing the term.
i don't expect you to read Habermas, but if you're going to argue about this matter, at least read my posts. i anticipated and answered your questions. that's because Habermas is pretty comprehensive about anticipating and answering questions and revising his theories in light of criticisms.
kelley
kelley