[WS:] Wrong assumption. In case you did not follow this thread from the start, I responded to Dennis posting on the subject with a question about a detail that caught my attention. Some people replied with sanctimonious lecturing and personal invective - which btw is very typical of public discourse in this country, so it does not come as much of a surprise - others (Max, Joanna) replied that my information was inaccurate and explained why. To that, I replied that I take the point & explained why I initially thought what I did. Hence the informant part (i.e. information how people think and organize their perceptions which I thought might be of interest to some.) I never pretended it to be a discussion between peers because as I said time and again, I do not have direct knowledge of the subject, only secondary accounts.
Wojtek
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nowhere. You're an informant now? I thought you were part of a group of
> more or less like minded folks engaged in collegial or comradish exchanges.
> I'm not studying you, I'm arguing against you. Jeez.
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>