My commitee complain that it is far too chatty and easy to read. It needs a
much heavier dose of theory.
As for the rest of 'us'.
We *don't* get by with regular English. It must have taken me nine
months to get a decent approximation of what marketeers mean by "channel" and
I still don't have a nuanced grasp of the concept.
I can't even begin to read biology and chemistry papers in Science, people
accept that.
As for 'alterity': it is a term that a sophmore or junior in anthropology or
sociology should be able to use competently.
On Monday 17 September 2001 22:10, you wrote:
> Julia Thompson wrote:
> > I was able to ignore enough of the formatting to make it out all right,
> > but it wasn't the easiest read. Maybe the codes could be taken out and
> > a cleaner version posted?
>
> No amount of code removal is going to make it an easy read - obfuscation
> and pleonasm on a grand scale. Why do scholars need to use supererogation
> and redundant words, when the rest of us get by with everyday English?
> Alterity indeed...
>
> Russell C.
