#!markdown
LeeLau- I really enjoy the contributions you make with your work and your
writing. However, you lack in social analysis, both in terms of your writing
and your interpretation of others. This is not intended as a slight, but an
observation that you and I (and you and LR too) write for completely different
purposes. The Grannies article was meant for satire, and to subvert the
discourse being spread by the Kraals. In fact, it completely and accurately
predicted their "defense" before they made it public, proving the accuracy of
the analysis. I say this not to grandstand, but to suggest that different
types of writing serve different purposes. You won't catch me all high and
mighty, claiming that your approach is flawed, and I certainly don't expect
you to shower me or other similar observers of the case with applause. But to
throw my article and this one in a big wastebasket that you call "dreck" is a
bit high and mighty, and I think you're losing track of the target here. I
suggest more than one type of tool is needed in this particular chain of
events. You wield yours very effectively, and I will concede that your legal
analysis is likely superior to that of Loam Ranger, and probably to mine as
well. But please don't proffer to own this issue as the one and only, and act
like only your lens will do. There are other types of experts out there, other
than those with a law degree. I think we're on the same side here in terms of
what we want to see on the trails. We differ in our way of framing the issue,
but we each lack the authority to refer to each other's offerings as dreck or
otherwise lacking value. Rubber side down.
Feb. 11, 2015, 10 p.m. - Jordan Tesluk
#!markdown LeeLau- I really enjoy the contributions you make with your work and your writing. However, you lack in social analysis, both in terms of your writing and your interpretation of others. This is not intended as a slight, but an observation that you and I (and you and LR too) write for completely different purposes. The Grannies article was meant for satire, and to subvert the discourse being spread by the Kraals. In fact, it completely and accurately predicted their "defense" before they made it public, proving the accuracy of the analysis. I say this not to grandstand, but to suggest that different types of writing serve different purposes. You won't catch me all high and mighty, claiming that your approach is flawed, and I certainly don't expect you to shower me or other similar observers of the case with applause. But to throw my article and this one in a big wastebasket that you call "dreck" is a bit high and mighty, and I think you're losing track of the target here. I suggest more than one type of tool is needed in this particular chain of events. You wield yours very effectively, and I will concede that your legal analysis is likely superior to that of Loam Ranger, and probably to mine as well. But please don't proffer to own this issue as the one and only, and act like only your lens will do. There are other types of experts out there, other than those with a law degree. I think we're on the same side here in terms of what we want to see on the trails. We differ in our way of framing the issue, but we each lack the authority to refer to each other's offerings as dreck or otherwise lacking value. Rubber side down.