> It is an amateurish jumping into a discipline without any attention to
> the many already existing works in this important area of knowledge.
Such as ... ? I'll admit to a near-complete ignorance of prior attempts to tackle the problem Diamond addresses:
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and provided you with some titles. I don't even have a dog in the Diamond fight, so I was disinterested. Instead, you wanted to be convinced that they were worth reading, and you wanted someone else to do the work of summary for you. Not long after, you were accusing me of trying to lead you on an academic wild goose chase. Shit, read the books, don't read them, makes me no fucking never mind. But darling, you have no lessons to learn when it comes to the art of the flounce.
Dissenting Wren "MoS"
----- Original Message ---- From: Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 3:45:12 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] vaca reading
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Dissenting Wren <dissentingwren at yahoo.com>wrote:
OTOH, when someone says here that he doesn't know anything about the earlier
> scholarship that lies behind GGS, solicits titles, then responds to the
> titles
> provided with a snark, one may just smell a hint of troll.
>
If responding to a naked list of titles with a request for information as to their actual contents is your idea of "snark," I smell more than a hint of a drama queen. Don't let me stand in your way, though; most lists have at least one in residence, and they are, if nothing else, often good for collective amusement.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað." ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk