academic commentary

António Pedro Marques · 30 Nov 2010, 17:10 · from 2010-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:10:45 +0000
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <363353.81138.qm at web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <SNT123-W34DF28524EFFA57A2C241ECF250 at phx.gbl>
	<363353.81138.qm at web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4CF53015.5060201 at gmail.com>

Another great post, Craig, but,

Craig Brewer wrote (30-11-2010 16:48):
> If the standard you set for yourself when reading is that everything the
> author says is suspect and most likely a potential deception (this is largely
> Wright's methodology), then making a positive case for real divinity in New Sun
> becomes incredibly difficult.

...it seems to me that making a positive case for anything at all is very 
difficult (whether by positive you mean definite or positivist).

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net