May 2014 Wolfe interview in _Technology Review_

entonio at gmail.com · 10 Aug 2014, 13:34 · from 2014-August.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 (entonio at gmail.com)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 14:34:33 +0100
Subject: (urth) FW: May 2014 Wolfe interview in _Technology Review_
In-Reply-To: <53E7460D.7050001 at bindweed.com>
References: <BLU175-W11942014F1112B78CCABC5CFEE0 at phx.gbl>
	<53E64330.3000209 at clueland.com>
	<97D366AC-201C-4B18-8CA0-91A3CFD4EA9A at gmail.com>
	<53E7460D.7050001 at bindweed.com>
Message-ID: <AB4B1CAE-8A10-4AB5-9473-263866418B84 at gmail.com>

No dia 10/08/2014, ?s 11:14, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> escreveu:

> 
> On 10/08/2014 01:04, entonio at gmail.com wrote:
>> Inasmuch as Gerry has said a lot of sensible stuff, the way he's applied it recently makes him more like the anti-Lee than anything else. Now, if I find Lee's stuff over the top, at least it's stuff (and my issue with Lee is more his tone than his content). Whereas recently Gerry has gone out of his way to say 'nothing to see here, move along'.
> I would argue that in cases where I have been criticising proposed interpretations rather than proposing my own, I am merely arguing for some kind of consistency of approach and of interpretation, and for interpretations that are not infinitely malleable when critiqued.

But that's not all you've been doing; you've gone far into saying some readings are all there is to a given story, implying that one shouldn't attempt to come up with an alternative. Even if none of the current ones is satisfactory, it doesn't mean one doesn't exist, and there is in principle nothing wrong in refining hypotheses. For instance, I find Marc's interpretation of Suzanne Delage falling short, but nonetheless a necessary first step.

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