On Jul 13, 2008, at 3:35 AM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
It isn't a question of reading Phil. That's
not the issue here.
When there is conflict on an issue, unless you ascribe bad faith to
one
side, then it's never just an issue of basic reading. It's always
more involved
than that.
I've got an entire academic field of literary studies that would
disagree with you.
I mean, I do not see how we can justify making the position Ken is
holding here one we demand sources for. It is demonstrably a less
difficult and complex inference than ones we allow by default. I do
not doubt your good faith in asserting otherwise, but unless there's
something I'm missing, you are completely and utterly wrong.
-Phil