In a message dated 9/26/00 6:12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Brenner clearly went out on a limb to attack the D-of-U school. And Blaut
attacks back, also going out on a limb. I won't say which of these two has
higher levels of scholarship. It seems to me that both "bend the stick" a
little too far in an effort to make it straight (i.e., the exaggerate their
positions, the way lawyers do in court). >>
You're kidding right? There is no question who has the higher level of
schilarship. Brenner is one of the major historians of our time. Blaut is
just another professor. He might be right, but he can't touch Brenner for
scholarship.
Btw, good lawyers do not exaggerate their positions. Bad lawyers do it all
the time, but a plain understated theory of the case is always the best
approach. The best lawyers I have seen all employ this approach. --jks (a
lawyer)
