>
>Kelley:
> > you obviously didn't try with me. have you replied to any of the lengthier
> > posts where i went into H's theory at length and addressed, point for
> > point, nearly, the crits on this thread? not to my knowledge. neither did
> > anyone else. why?
>
>See? "_I_ said the right things, _they_ didn't." That's
>the rhetoric of debate. You can win, but it ain't a patch
>on the joys of subversion and seduction.
>
>But now we have entered the phase of the metadiscussion, the
>arguing about the argument, which means we are near the end
>anyway. Does anyone want to take issue with that?
no, the complaint isn't that i'm right and everyone else is wrong, the complaint is that i put a lot of effort into an explanation and then no one actually engaged me in what i said. they didn't recognize me as a participant in the conversation. there was a debate between ken and others, then i would try to explain in a different way what ken was saying. i'd do so at length and take time to organize it as best i could, to address the concerns, as best i could. and yet, no one actually read what i wrote or, at least, no one engaged what i wrote. instead, there were more questions and criticisms from various people who, had they read what i wrote, wouldn't have asked what they did.
i know that i'm not hard to understand--tho i make a lot of typos and goofs when i edit! (yeah, i actually edit! and STILL fuck up! LOL).
and yet, there were crits that made clear that no one read what i wrote. two of the participants in the convo even asked me to do the work--explain more onlist. and they continued to not read what i wrote, let alone acknowledge it.