>>it appears we are back to the Yoshie and Carrol attack Routine.
>
>Pointing out a circular reasoning, in my opinion, does not constitute an
>"attack." This being a "free country," however, naturally you are free to
>say that it does. Perhaps Doug should make it part of the rules of
>discussion here: "Pointing out circular reasoning & other logical problems
>is a flame & should be avoided." :)
>
>Yoshie
no, you didn't simply point out circular reasoning, you could only do so by 1. ignoring catherine's other discussions here and, worse, 2. ignoring what catherine said from the outset. so, you avoided acknowleding what catherine had actually typed, because she gave you quite enough of an indication that she was not asserting an ahistorical interpretation of dependence and that she was indeed suspicious of the bourgeois billiard model of identity/self/subjectivity. to accuse her of advocating it despite all that and to then, twice, accuse of her an incapacity to read was, yes you're right, not an attack. rather you were both grinding an axe on her head: deliberately ignoring what she'd written just so you'd have a convenient platform from which to hone your claims, arguments, positions.
but it's a good thing that you put a smiley at the end of your post, because i take it this signals self-deprecating humor re: the original subject title questioning catherine's inability to read?
the see-through nighties only occasionally work with me, yoshie! kelley