On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:24 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20 March 2015 at 12:31, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3/19/2015 3:54 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 20 March 2015 at 10:56, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Clark is that desperate order of human whose only creative ability lies >>> in shitting on the thinking of others. He is quite simply bereft of any >>> thinking of his own and has clearly never once in gis life experienced a >>> creative idea - even by accident. He is therefore exists only as a parasite >>> on the back of others since he lacks the means to exist as a thinker in his >>> own right. >>> >>> This might be of interest... >> >> http://writersfestival.co.nz/events/the-role-of-the-critic/ >> >> I wonder why only art needs critics? >> > > Science has peer review etc, sport and business have commentators, and so > on. I think you'll find there are critics in most fields. >
A fundamental difference in science is that peer reviewers are other scientists, working on their own research. There are no professional critics in science. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
