Babbiehorn?: Was: a sincere question mostly for roy

David Stockhoff · 17 Nov 2011, 15:00 · from 2011-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: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:00:01 -0500
Subject: (urth) Babbiehorn?: Was: a sincere question mostly for roy
In-Reply-To: <C762298140DE48B594A069E418E71162@Rover>
References: <163817.55332.qm at web58206.mail.re3.yahoo.com><006a01cba98c$08dce140$76d04a0c@rclackey><4EC2EA57.6050603 at verizon.net><4EC2F7F8.50603 at verizon.net><4EC32090.3080402 at gmail.com><B9D6EE0B77924CE3B3A6141A77AE9C7B@Rover><4EC3D6A0.3010702 at gmail.com><785184038C7F43F5B8904AF2ACEEDAEC@Rover><4EC3EA56.5040304 at verizon.net><269ABB99AB7A4844B481781484E4FFE0@Rover><4EC3F0F1.8050004 at gmail.com><361A3DF9EDE34095B43F57AFC934C667@Rover><4EC3FB63.7010301 at gmail.com><8B62A70E4701459087B6534260A0D361@Rover><4EC40D79.1080009 at gmail.com><3509EB1DEEA74B1A868D1A0E3A6D2E7A@Rover><4EC425DF.8000303 at gmail.com><CAJ8=rthM7y+s2Jk+2OF6t1JUhYrhJLNKEmkcvQMj752B=Hz6Xw at mail.gmail.com><4EC42AFA.2000008 at gmail.com><F3ABD324B1E84461A089FEF226F8FC30@Rover><4EC4872B.4020603 at verizon.net><3FD4B4C9049148FCA9E1C2193CFBB5F0@Rover>
	<4EC5091F.10007 at verizon.net>
	<C762298140DE48B594A069E418E71162@Rover>
Message-ID: <4EC52171.60205 at verizon.net>

On 11/17/2011 8:51 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> But I?m prepared to wait. Perhaps some better ideas will turn up. I 
> prefer to do without a theory than accept an impossible one.


It's becoming plain to me that not only do you not begin to comprehend 
how Wolfe constructs his narratives, but that you prefer not to. And so 
you promote impossible theories, while catcalling promising ones, 
apparently just for the satisfaction of dragging down attempts to 
explain by observed principles.

If a better idea does turn up, I am convinced that you will pretend to 
entertain it reasonably just to shoot it down as it is explained to you. 
Your ego prefers a wasteland.

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