(urth) theories

[António Pedro Marques]

Ryan Dunn wrote (23-10-2011 17:59):

> And it appeared you were agreeing with Gerrys note which, in short, took
> a certain view of people who apparently were reading Wolfe the wrong way.
> That seems kind of close minded and elitist to the untrained eye.

I don't think the quote by Sergei did that. It merely depicts how some - in 
particular, Lee, that I can see - approach the works. It's descriptive, not 
judgemental (it may turn judgemental later on - I don't know, I'm just 
reporting to the part Sergei quoted). Now, if someone finds the description 
offensive, that's not the describer's fault. One might argue the description 
is inaccurate, but I don't think anybody will. For my part, all the power to 
everyone, regardless of their approaches; but I think it's healthy to know 
how each one goes on about constructing their theories.

This list has in recent years surprised me as a place where people are 
overly sensitive about having their theories questioned. Also as a place 
where people seem to think that if you haven't a rival theory, you have no 
business discussing the theories of others. I don't think either stance is 
reasonable.