Well, I rather resent the implication that I am one of those people who "doesn't understand it but feel there must be something to it because it is so confusing." In the first place, I don't find Bryer at all confusing. A lot of his paper is tediously dull because it is addressing the kind of academic hair-splitting that would only be of interest to a narrow (and possibly narrow-minded) group of specialists. I don't have any problem with that. I understand the system and am quite capable of wading through the quagmire.
I can even read impotent hate speech with equanimity. "Werner Sombart is a clot." is a debatable proposition. I suppose there are those who would say "Henry George is a clot" and offer as little evidence for their assertion as Harry did for his claim. Does that mean that the burden of proof is on Harry to show that Henry George is not a clot? Of course not. So what really is Harry's _point_ in making these sweeping gestures of intellectual disrespect? That he holds the Sandwichman and whatever he has to say in contempt? Thanks for the conversation, Harry. The next sentence can be left unsaid. On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Harry Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > Werner Sombart is a clot. > > Rob Bryer is a political humbug. He dribbles out political ideology as if it > means something. > > It doesn't. His words are the equivalent of campaign sloganeering. > > One point should be noted. This is the way the game is played. Serious > drivel is poured into the ears of people who don't understand it but feel > there must be something to it because it is so confusing. -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
