Re: what was that?


Subject: Re: what was that?
From: James Phelps (jimphelps_niucms@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Aug 17 2005 - 13:21:43 EDT


I would hope that, before writing this statement, you
would have reviewed the exact quote from your email to
which I was responding ... its "tenor."

-Jim

--- Linda Seltzer <lseltzer@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

> Thank you for sharing your prejudices.
>
> > For whom is this question? Presumably Linda
> Seltzer,
> > since specificity or, more pointedly,
> > quantification/verification of the cited
> comparison of
> > peoples' talent and ability was exactly the point
> of
> > my response. My verbose way of saying ... "how
> the
> > heck do you know that?" It's also another way of
> > saying that in 2005 this tenor of argument on this
> > issue is tedious, tenuous and tragically tired. I
> > would have added "non-productive" but it didn't
> quite
> > fit into my alliteration. :>)
> >
> > -Jim Phelps
> >
> >
>

                
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:10 EST