Lou:
>Now,
>since we can presume that Wood is probably reading PEN-L because she
>responded to my initial post this go-round, why won't she join in the
>discussion? The answer is obvious. It is beneath her. David Harvey was on
>PEN-L for a while as well and while discussion was swirling around his
>messed-up book on ecology, he just stood on the sidelines lurking and
>sniffing at the rabble.
Why should you be bothered if the author of a book you criticized on
an e-list doesn't write back? It seems you are the only one who is
bothered by an absence of a response. Lots of us have already
responded to your criticism of Ellen Wood from various perspectives
(and this is not the first PEN-l debate on her work), to take just
one example. Do responses from the PEN-l rabble fail to satisfy you?
At 5:26 PM +0300 5/25/01, Keaney Michael wrote:
>>The Internet requires you to not only think on your
>>feet, but to be able to withstand heavy doses of sarcasm and bluntness.
>>These sensitive souls are just not up to it. That is why I have a lot of
>>respect for Brad DeLong even though I find his politics detestable. Even
>>though he is high up on the Berkeley totem pole, he is not above joining in
>>what Jim Blaut called our "food fights."
>
>=====
>
>You omitted the bit about masochistic pain threshold...
Indeed.
Yoshie
