Saul writes: > I would say that I would give her the opportunity to differ or clarify the > notion that she has in her mind in response to mine. As such I would have > proposed a boundary and my understanding of that boundary and allowed her to > pick away at it > But, Saul, that's exactly what I have done. I described what I assumed as a "boundary", made clear it was an assumption, and put it to Kate.
Moreover, I described to Kate four different possible interpretations of "understanding a thing", put them to Kate, and asked her to describe her notion when she used the phrase. > I tend to favor > a heuristic process - rather than tailoring my responses to someone else's > expectations > But Saul, it seems to me that's exactly what you're criticising in me: I haven't been tailoring my responses to others' expectations. Instead I've pressed for some clarification of the key notions before embarking on an otherwise fruitless discussion. > - but then again you have in the past made it clear that your > approach to playwriting is one of tailoring your content to your venue > I hope so. Whenever I should write a play for children, I hope it will be tailored to such an audience. If ever I write a play where I know the venue will be inner-city high schools, I hope I don't write a Tom-Stoppardian ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN. If commissioned to write a comedy, I'd feel myself bound not to deliver a tragedy. Some commissioning festivals are built around a "theme"; I'd be wrong to accept such a commission and then ignore the theme the venue expects. You disappoint me on three scores, Saul. You continue to be bent on never finding any worthy thought whatever in anything that I post. I msyelf have often cited places where I've blundered, so I don't at all claim there aren't errors in what I've written. But I'm not persuaded that it's not the case that every single point I try to make is wrong. Second, it's disappointing to me that you won't answer direct questions like the one I sent you earlier today: "Saul, can you honestly say you have no doubt what the one and only notion in Kate's mind could have been when she wrote "understanding a thing"?" I realize you would not feel this should be disappointing, since a policy of not answering questions is consonant with your own announced larger policy: "I tend to favor a heuristic process - rather than tailoring my responses to someone else's expectations." Third, you fail to see how small you seem when you take time out to take malev olent, irrelevant, ad hominem shots at people -- e.g. putting down Cheerskep as a playwright, especially since you must know next to nothing about what he writes in that genre. ************** Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
