I thought you were someone who admitted to knowing very little about this topic but who nevertheless wrote in very knowing ways. My suggestion was that when you don't know what you're talking about and know that you've avoided learning about the issues at hand because of certain predispositions that you change the tone of how you write. You could say things like: "I've always heard...", "Is it true that..." "Could anyone help me better understand..." "This sounds to me, at least at first blush, to point...." "I don't understand the context in which..." etc.
I think another thing that's kinda got some some folks feeling like their knickers are in a twist is that - just in the last two years - there have been a number of discussions about the Panthers, Weather Underground, Red Brigades, etc and these exchanges have clearly differentiated the groups, their contexts, etc, as well as various affiliations and affections here on the list... but not an iota of that work that, again, we assume you've read given your participation rate here appears to have penetrated your aversion or informed your recent posts.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan: "But you are NOT taking the point. You are letting your strong
> aversion
> utterly and completely blind you to historical and geographic context
> while,"
>
> [WS;} So where do they teach that criticizing the informant for not
> knowing what the researcher does is a valid method of
> sociological/ethnographic inquiry?
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>