In a message dated 12/11/2008 8:52:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
Well, in an earlier reply I pointed to the ludicrous problems with NOR and "interpretation." There's a policy that is actively geared against the humanities. (Or, let's be fairer, against literary studies, which is my field)>>
--------------------- NOR only says, "we don't want YOUR opinion and interpretation". It does not say, we don't want any opinions. Just not yours. You as an editor should have no opinion, when editing here. You should cite and quote the opinions of others.
Will Johnson
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)
On Dec 12, 2008, at 12:03 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
NOR only says, "we don't want YOUR opinion and interpretation". It does not say, we don't want any opinions. Just not yours. You as an editor should have no opinion, when editing here. You should cite and quote the opinions of others.
You should go find my earlier post, where I explained this in more detail. The specific problem is a part in the discussion of primary sources where NOR says that primary sources can only be used for descriptive claims, not for interpretation.
The problem is that there's a very large chunk of literary studies that would reject the distinction between description and interpretation.
-Phil