Re: Yes, by St. Jerome, but there is, Horatio, and much offence, too!

Objective criteria? There is none :). We only know what Scottie may have
"meant" because we think we know Scottie. It would be very difficult to argue
for one reading (Scottie's rhetoric was hate filled) or another (Scottie's
rhetoric was an innocently intended barb) only by looking at Scottie's words.
I heard them with a certain Tone because I usually attach a certain Tone to
Scottie's words.

The tone, however, is provided almost entirely by the reader, not the text.

Jim

Matt Kozusko wrote:

> Mixed forum, mixed reception (it must follow, as the night the day, & c.).
>
> Whatever the verdict on Scottie's rude wagging of the tongue, it seems to
> me (in a deliciously ironic sense, here on this theory-paranoid list) that
> appeals to what Scottie meant when he suffered himself to post the
> "hate-filled" words can't be much use.
>
> Are they, in fact, hate-filled, the terms? Can they be hate-filled if
> they were uttered in the spirit of hardnosed affection and
> season-celebrating chumminess? Does it matter?
>
> Will's offended and Tim's concerned. Doubtless, responses will vary, and
> most of them won't be honest anyway. I challenge someone to provide some
> good objective criteria by which to establish what's really going on here.
>
> A lovely merry Christmas to you all, despite the present unpleasant,
>
> Goodwill and love,
>
> Il n'y a pas de hors texte,
>
> Matt
>
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Dec 26 11:24:22 2002