Christos,
At the risk of triggering a lengthy response from you, I for one
do find some of your discourses overly convoluted and difficult to
follow. Furthermore, they tend to have a slightly condescending
tone that some may find offensive.
Robert Lewis
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 00:20:43 +0100
From: "Christos Stavrou" <christos.stavrou@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Re: Published!
Please don't call my analysis ''philosophical manipulation''...
I think you've done this before and sorry but can't overlook it
again :-)
In fact, shouldn't you actually appreciate.. even slightly.. that
my
thoughts introduce some of the mainstream and bloody interesting
debates in academic circles and sociological departments?..
We all learn by re-examining our assumptions, don't we?.. And it
seems
that you usually ask scientists' advise, so why such reaction
now?..
Ok, I understand that many academic theories sound too
challenging,
things tend to change fast, old common-sense is suddenly
demolished
and replaced.. but there's nothing personal, nothing to fear,
when
for example I offer criticisms to established but weak -as i
explain-
ways of thinking, such as the label 'mother nature', or the
self-given
'right' of intervention, or the 'progressive' as claimed human
motives
in managing nature ..
It could be a new light to see things. You could offer back
specific
counter-arguments. However, whether anyone here likes to join
critical
thinking or not ... at least, there is nothing manipulative or
'too
philosophical' to complain about.
C.S.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|