On 3/20/2015 12:57 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:24 AM, LizR <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 20 March 2015 at 12:31, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 3/19/2015 3:54 PM, LizR wrote:On 20 March 2015 at 10:56, Kim Jones <[email protected] <mailto:[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.
And also their critiques go to the producer, not to the public he's addressing. Brent
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.
