Hilarious Student Quotes -- POMO goes global
FRAN
I've disappeared to the PC to let him go to it. (Well that's my
excuse).
One of his students provided the quote of the night.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a great
impact on society., the world and people as a whole. Its ramifications
are widespread, and many of them are caused by the improper use of the
term. In the 1990s, globalisation became associated with economics.
There was a new globalisation that was driven by the capitalist
economy. This as well as the fear of globalisation as inevitable and
without any benefits changed the public's view of the world and led to
many people taking action to prevent its continuation. The ways in
which people have resisted globalisation are varied even without
government support."
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tremendous concluding paragraph!!
Fran
John_Kane
This is, obviously, a gallant attempt to answer a question about which
the student knows nothing. Perhaps your husband has a budding
politician in his class?
Donna Richoux
I didn't get the joke when FRAN posted, and I don't get it from this
remark either. Surely the student is talking about the
anti-globalization protests that are occurring around the world, done by
the people who fear the power of multinational corporations and the
like. Except for a use of "its" without clear referent ("to prevent its
continuation"), what's the big deal?
I find three definitions of "POMO" -- is this supposed to be
"post-modern"?
--
Unclear on the concept -- Donna Richoux
CyberCypher
news:1gx6f22.1gszm2fu3yym8N%tr...@euronet.nl:
The big deal is that the writer says nothing in very many words. You
are filling in lots of blanks, but the writer proves only that he or
she is ignorant about "globalization". I learned absolutely nothing
from reading the student's final paragraph. That's because the
student said nothing. (I had to repeat that so you'd get it.)
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
M. J. Powell
<fran...@hotmail.com> writes
There's a job waiting for him at EU Headquarters, Brussels.
Mike
Lanarcam
At the global Headquarters?
In our globalized world, globolization has become a global issue,
around the globe, globally, of course.
Pat Durkin
"FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117108270....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
In terms of AUE discussions, I would have to give this student at least a
"C" and possibly a "B+", simply because he used "its" in its apostrophically
correct construction.
(Unless the typography is FRAN's, in which case I might comment upon the
period+comma in the first sentence. Then again, perhaps the correct "its"
appears because of FRAN's typography.)
Matti Lamprhey
> > FRAN wrote:
> > > Hubby is currently tearing at his hair in another round of
> > > marking. I've disappeared to the PC to let him go to it.
> > > (Well that's my excuse).
> > >
> > > One of his students provided the quote of the night.
> > >
> > > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > >
> > > "Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a great
> > > impact on society., the world and people as a whole. Its
> > > ramifications are widespread, and many of them are caused by
> > > the improper use of the term. In the 1990s, globalisation became
> > > associated with economics. There was a new globalisation that
> > > was driven by the capitalist economy. This as well as the fear of
> > > globalisation as inevitable and without any benefits changed the
> > > public's view of the world and led to many people taking action to
> > > prevent its continuation. The ways in which people have resisted
> > > globalisation are varied even without government support."
> > >
> > > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > >
> > > Tremendous concluding paragraph!!
>
The bit I liked was "This ... changed the public's view of the world and
led to many people taking action to prevent its continuation."
Matti
Phil C.
I'd call it "waffle" - either noun or verb. MW suggest that's
"[Chiefly Brit.] wordy, vague, or indecisive talk or writing." COD
gives "verbose but aimless or ignorant talk or writing." It was the
standard term when I was at school.
--
Phil C.
meirman
<fran...@hotmail.com> posted:
>Hubby is currently tearing at his hair in another round of marking.
>I've disappeared to the PC to let him go to it. (Well that's my
>excuse).
>
>One of his students provided the quote of the night.
>
>|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't think the paragraph says nothing. I think it says something
not very well that is true, and includes some things that are not
supported, not supportable, or false. Things in all three categories.
How old was the writer?
>"Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a great
The word isn't defined (I think it is) or the limits of the word's
applicability isn't defined (It's probably not well defined. Many
notions aren't.) But it's not clear which he means.
>impact on society., the world and people as a whole. Its ramifications
People as a whole is equivalent to society. Individual people might
be what he meant, but he didn't say it.
>are widespread, and many of them are caused by the improper use of the
>term.
He never gives examples of the improper use of the term.
>In the 1990s, globalisation became associated with economics.
I think it has always been associated with economics. Weren't there
other terms for the ability to travel farther and more easily, or for
the ability to make phone calls or send tv signals all around the
world. Again, how old is the student. He could have looked this up,
but I don't think the possibility of an alternative has occurred to
him.
>There was a new globalisation that was driven by the capitalist
>economy.
In practice the systems of the countries involved may have been
capitalist (even China), but I don't think it requires a capitalist
economy anywhere to "drive" globalization. If communist countries
could have produced enough to export, they would have and will. It
doesn't matter if the government owns the means of production or if
private parties do. What probably matters the most is
industrialization (and the ability to produce more than be used
locally), larger ships and cheaper transportation; and telegraph,
telephones, television, satellites, and computerized data
transmission, including audio and video.
Is capitalism required? Isn't Viet Nam still communist? I see
clothes for sale in the States that are made in Viet Nam.
"Free trade" is not dependant on the economic system of the countries
involved, but on tariff and treaty arrangements. I think the US
should have a bigger than average tariff on imported steel, because
steel is still a strategic defense material, and it's too late now for
some industries, but I would support some tariffs on many other
products. Perhaps we should have had a 25 or 35 year schedule of
lowering tariffs that would have given time for people to work until
retirement before their factories closed, while warning young people
coming into the labour market that some industries would fade away.
But people wanted low prices right away, and politicians wanted to
make them happy.
> This as well as the fear of globalisation as inevitable and
What is "this"? New globalisation or the capitalist economny.
Why is the fear inevitable? Why is there fear at all?
>without any benefits changed the public's view of the world and led to
There are enormous benefits of globalization.
There are also enormous detriments for many people, and he doesn't say
what they are.
>many people taking action to prevent its continuation. The ways in
I think that, strangely, the people demonstrating at WTO meetings etc.
are not those who are hurt by globalisation, and maybe it's my lack of
reading or the press's lack of reporting, but I haven't heard them
making the point of who is hurt or what should be done instead.
Either that or they've made points I discarded as stupid. Or, by
using force at these demonstrations or for some other reason, what
they thought would highlight their story has instead caused the
replacement of their story with stories about the violence. If it
bleeds, it leads.
It's no comfort, and I don't see how it can be, to the people who lose
their jobs because manufacturing is moved to Malaysia or China, that
elsewhere in the American (etc.) economy someone is making more money.
>which people have resisted globalisation are varied even without
>government support."
You're right, he should name some. But, come to think of it, isn't
this the final paragraph? Did he name any earlier?
Look, I know about bad writing, I still cringe when I recall something
I wrote in the 9th grade. I mitigated my problem by majoring in math,
and later by working as a computer programmer**, which both probably
require the least amount of writing of all similarly valued fields.
If this guy doesn't get better, maybe he can do the same.
**I don't use any of those other fancy-shmancy terms.
>|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>
>Tremendous concluding paragraph!!
>
>Fran
s/ meirman
Posting from alt.english.usage
--
If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Town NW of Pittsburgh Pa. 0 to 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 22 years
Donna Richoux
Really? That's it? There must be millions of hundred-word passages in
existence that don't say very much -- why did anyone bother to type out
this one in particular?
>You
> are filling in lots of blanks,
Actually, I merely explained what the concern of "globalization" is.
>but the writer proves only that he or
> she is ignorant about "globalization".
Then you must think it is something different than I do. Since I
bothered to explain my idea of what it is, maybe you could explain
yours. Somehow I figure you to be a person who has strong opinions on
this, although I don't remember which way.
>I learned absolutely nothing
> from reading the student's final paragraph. That's because the
> student said nothing.
No, that's because it's a *final* paragraph. I have to assume that the
rest of the paper said what the "ramifications" were, and the "many
improper uses of the term," why people saw "globalization as inevitable
and without any benefits," and what the many actions were that were
taken to "prevent its continuation." This is not nothing. This is
summarizing a considerable number of points that have gone before -- in
my humble estimation.
>(I had to repeat that so you'd get it.)
Right, otherwise I'd accuse you of merely failing to see what is there.
--
Still perplexed -- Donna Richoux
Donna Richoux
> "Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote...
> > > FRAN wrote:
> > > > Hubby is currently tearing at his hair in another round of
> > > > marking. I've disappeared to the PC to let him go to it.
> > > > (Well that's my excuse).
> > > >
> > > > One of his students provided the quote of the night.
> > > >
> > > > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> > > >
> > > > "Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a great
> > > > impact on society., the world and people as a whole. Its
> > > > ramifications are widespread, and many of them are caused by
> > > > the improper use of the term. In the 1990s, globalisation became
> > > > associated with economics. There was a new globalisation that
> > > > was driven by the capitalist economy. This as well as the fear of
> > > > globalisation as inevitable and without any benefits changed the
> > > > public's view of the world and led to many people taking action to
> > > > prevent its continuation. The ways in which people have resisted
> > > > globalisation are varied even without government support."
> > > >
> > I didn't get the joke when FRAN posted, [...]
>
> The bit I liked was "This ... changed the public's view of the world and
> led to many people taking action to prevent its continuation."
>
That's the same thing I pointed out, the "unclear referent" for the
pronoun "its". You couldn't find anything better either, then.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Donna Richoux
> >>> FRAN wrote:
> >>> > Hubby is currently tearing at his hair in another round of
> >>> > marking. I've disappeared to the PC to let him go to it. (Well
> >>> > that's my excuse).
> >>> >
> >>> > One of his students provided the quote of the night.
> >>> >
> >>> > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> >>> >
> >>> > "Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a
> >>> > great impact on society., the world and people as a whole. Its
> >>> > ramifications are widespread, and many of them are caused by
> >>> > the improper use of the term. In the 1990s, globalisation
> >>> > became associated with economics. There was a new globalisation
> >>> > that was driven by the capitalist economy. This as well as the
> >>> > fear of globalisation as inevitable and without any benefits
> >>> > changed the public's view of the world and led to many people
> >>> > taking action to prevent its continuation. The ways in which
> >>> > people have resisted globalisation are varied even without
> >>> > government support."
> >>> >
[snip intervening discussion]
> I'd call it "waffle" - either noun or verb. MW suggest that's
> "[Chiefly Brit.] wordy, vague, or indecisive talk or writing." COD
> gives "verbose but aimless or ignorant talk or writing." It was the
> standard term when I was at school.
So, would you mind pointing a particular sentence that waffles? I'm
really trying to understand what it is people see in this.
(I'm still hoping to hear what "POMO" means. See Subject line.)
--
Thanks - Donna Richoux
R H Draney
>
>The word isn't defined (I think it is) or the limits of the word's
>applicability isn't defined (It's probably not well defined. Many
>notions aren't.) But it's not clear which he means.
In this case, I'd say "lack of definition" means "I tried to look it up in a
dictionary (probably one that uses the zedful spelling), but I couldn't find
it"....r
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
It is written like that dumb jock giving his final presentation speech
before the entire student body in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure".
He's desperately trying to explain "the future" and everything he comes
up with he can't actually say anything about. The audience is bored,
restless, ready to leave. He tries saying that the future is
"computers", which also says nothing. Finally in desperation he gives up
and shouts, "San Dimas High School football rules!", and the kids go
nuts, shouting and clapping and cheering their fool heads off. The
teachers are dismayed.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
Phil C.
wrote:
(I'd say that a person waffles but that a piece of writing is waffle -
but others may use the term differently.)
The paragraph could be summarised as "Globalisation is very important.
It has something to do with capitalist economics. A lot of people
oppose it." The first couple of sentences set the tone.
"...globalisation has quite a great impact on society, the world and
people as a whole. Its ramifications are widespread..." The student
has managed to say the same platitudinous thing four times.
Waffling depends heavily on hedging your bets (e.g *quite* a great
impact), using as many words as possible to fill the space and hinting
airily that you know more about the subject but aren't telling - "The
ways in which people have resisted globalisation are varied even
without government support." (etc. etc.) I once finished an economics
essay with "...but the dynamic effects may outweigh these
disadvantages." I didn't give any detail because I had no idea what I
was talking about. I got away with it, though.
--
Phil C.
chrissy
While other posters are correct to say it's a waffle, what's funny
about it and what makes it "POMO" [post-modern] is the near complete
disappearance of human agency in a key assertion made by the writer, in
favour of the struggle over meaning. According to the student:
"the ramifications [of globalisation and its impact on society] are
widespread, and many of them are caused by the improper use of the
term."
So the improper use of a term (is Cyber licking his lips here?] has
caused many of the ramifications. Presumably, if the term had been used
otherwise or in some more accurate way, globalisation's "ramifications"
would have burdened society in some other way, or perhaps more lightly.
Globalisation, if it is to have any "ramifications" or "impact on
society" must alter the way people deal with each other. It must be a
set of economic, social or political measures or policies that change
human behaviour and thus their life chances. As far as I can tell, the
term "globalisation" describes a set of trading and capital flow
practices, and the political and diplomatic arrangements attaching
thereto. For better or worse, it's entirely a set of human behaviours
that has "impacts". Reification is common in academic discourse, but
this example takes the practice to new heights.
How people use the term, or where it fits into "narratives" (a
favourite of the POMO crowd) may well tell us something about popular
expectations surrounding the policies associated with it or the way
people respond to it but it surely cannot "cause" anything beyond
letters to the editor or the occasional street protest or instance of
parochial angst.
Finally, try as I might I cannot fathom the last sentence at all. What
relationship does government support have to the character or form of
the protests over globalisation? So that's mere gobbledegook.
Where's Bob Lieblich when you need him?
cheers
Chrissy
CyberCypher
Yes, you did, but the student didn't.
>>but the writer proves only that he or
>> she is ignorant about "globalization".
>
> Then you must think it is something different than I do.
"Despite its lack of definition," says the student. That means to me
that the student doesn't know what it means. If the writer doesn't know
what it means, then why should I fill in my definition here? Why should
you? That's one of the rhetorical devices that bullshitters use. They
write with the knowledge that many people read into what they read that
which is in their (the readers') heads rather than extracting what is
actually on the page.
What I think globalization is is no more important than what you think
it is when analyzing what the student here says it is. The student says
it's undefined. That may mean that the student knows that many
different people define it many different ways, but that does not mean
that the term is undefined, only that it has many different
definitions, some of which conflict with each other.
> Since I bothered to explain my idea of what it is, maybe
> you could explain yours.
I think we probably agree on what it is given your mention of
multinational corporations and your not mentioning the WTO and lots of
other things that are a part of globalization. But, then, you and I
would say something of substance in a summary paragraph at the end of
an economics essay about globalization, not the bullshit the student
here has waffled on about.
> Somehow I figure you to be a person who has strong opinions
> on this, although I don't remember which way.
You think right. However, I'm not sure what my net opinion is . I have
many strong feelings both ways, but I probably think that it's overall
a bad idea just because the multinats have so much more control of
things than they used to.
>>I learned absolutely nothing from reading the student's final
>> paragraph. That's because the student said nothing.
>
> No, that's because it's a *final* paragraph. I have to assume
There's your problem. Final paragraphs of essays with substantive
points to make do not summarize their points by presenting bullshit but
by providing brief but concrete points.
> that the rest of the paper said what the "ramifications" were, and
> the "many improper uses of the term,"
I'm listening. How can a term without a definition be improperly used?
And how can the ramifications of globalization be caused by that
improper use?
> why people saw "globalization as inevitable and without
> any benefits,"
Without any benefits for whom? Certainly, Donna, someone benefits from
globalization, even if those benefits are short-term or merely
perceived to be benefits when they are not.
> and what the many actions were that were taken
> to "prevent its continuation."
I'd say it's "nothing". What were those actions? I can fill that in
from my own knowledge of protests by people who fear globalization, but
I wouldn't be able to tell you what other "actions" have been taken to
prevent globalization. I'm wondering just how anyone can prevent
something that is undefined from continuing.
> This is not nothing. This is summarizing a considerable number of
> points that have gone before
Perhaps, but there is no evidence that any concrete points have gone
before. You are assuming too much, I think.
> -- in my humble estimation.
>
>>(I had to repeat that so you'd get it.)
>
> Right, otherwise I'd accuse you of merely failing to see what is
> there.
I'm a New Critic-trained reader. I see what is there. You are not, so
you see what is not there and prefer to fill in the missing information
with the information in your head. Where in the quoted paragraph do you
see anything that has anything to do with the multinational
corporations you mentioned earlier? Only in the body of the essay you
imagine the student wrote, and you assume that the student wrote what
you would have written. I can appreciate this because I doubt that you
were one of those who wrote bullshit on your final exams. I'll bet you
had all the facts at your fingertips and on the tip of your tongue for
written exams and seminars in college and graduate school. You are too
well-prepared here not to have been that kind of outstanding student.
Let's analyze the paragraph:
> >> > "Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a
>> >> > great impact on society., the world and people as a whole.
How does the writer know this? After all, an undefined phenomenon is
difficult to recognize. Even phlogiston and the ether, two entities
that were not, had concrete definitions even though they had no
substance. What kind of impact has globalization had on society, a
positive or a negative one? Or both? And what might be the greatest
impact? Surely the writer knows. The writer needs to tells us.
>> >> > Its ramifications are widespread, and many of them are
>> >> > caused by the improper use of the term.
This is pure nonsense. What does it mean? "Ramifications" is one of
those words bullshitters love to throw around.
>> >> > In the 1990s, globalisation became associated with economics.
The writer implies that there was at least one other type of
globalization before the 1990s. What was it? Does this mean that in the
1980s there was no association between "globalization" and "economics"?
Or does it mean that the term "globalization" became associated with
the term "economics"? And why did it become so associated. Could it
have been the WTO talks and the NAFTA treaty?
>> >> > There was a new globalisation that was driven by the
>> >> > capitalist economy.
This is most interesting. If the term is undefined, how can we have
both a new and an old globalization?
>> >> > This as well as the fear of globalisation
What was their fear?
>> >> > as inevitable and
Why inevitable?
>> >> > without any benefits changed the public's
Which public are we talking about here? The public in the UK, in
Europe, in the USA, in Namibia? In Ho Chi Minh City? The rich public,
the middle-class public, the poor public, the developing world public,
the developing world public? Consumers, factory workers, bankers, shop
owners, greengrocers?
>> >> > view of the world
From a place that was X to a place that was Y? What are the values of X
and Y?
>> >> > and led to many people taking action to prevent its
>> >> > continuation. The ways in which people have resisted
>> >> > globalisation are varied even without government support."
What people are we talking about here? "Even without government
support" of what? Is there a connection between the "ways in which
people have resisted globalization" and "government support"? What kind
of government support? The kind the Chinese government gave anti-USA
protestors and anti-Japan protestors recently? Financial support? Etc.
Areff
chrissy wrote:
> Where's Bob Lieblich when you need him?
Yes, where is his honor, that judicial fellow?
Harvey Van Sickle
wrote
> Donna Richoux wrote:
-snip-
>> That's the same thing I pointed out, the "unclear referent" for
>> the pronoun "its". You couldn't find anything better either,
>> then.
>>
> It is written like that dumb jock giving his final presentation
> speech before the entire student body in "Bill and Ted's Excellent
> Adventure". He's desperately trying to explain "the future" and
> everything he comes up with he can't actually say anything about.
> The audience is bored, restless, ready to leave. He tries saying
> that the future is "computers", which also says nothing. Finally
> in desperation he gives up and shouts, "San Dimas High School
> football rules!", and the kids go nuts, shouting and clapping and
> cheering their fool heads off. The teachers are dismayed.
That's all very apt. But I think Donna's point is that this particular
example isn't a hell of a lot worse -- and is frankly much better --
than reams and reams and reams of stuff one encounters every day.
I fail to see why this particular excerpt from a student's paper should
be posted in a newsgroup and ridiculed as a particularly foul piece of
nonsensical writing.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canada for 30 years; S England since 1982.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Django Cat
Agreed. In fact I dream of teaching students with this level of
insight.
DC
FRAN
When hubby sat down, to mark, he swallowed a glass of scotch to get him
in the mood, and I joined him. After all the posters here missed what
seemed obvious, I was beginning to wonder if it was simply the case
that Black Douglas and marking papers don't mix, but I'm relieved to
see that I wasn't alone in thinking this an intellectually execrable,
thoough laughable post-modern drivel.
Fran
Robert Lieblich
Hey, I've been up and running for almost a week now on my new Dell,
dude.
On the merits, I prefer to be judicious in this instance. I agree
with everyone who has posted to this thread.
Well ...
I have faint recollections of writing similar stuff as a yoot. I once
wrote an answer to an exam question (in a Humanities course) on *De
Rerum Naturae* by Lucretius. Not only had I not read the book -- I
couldn't remember the author's name. I still got a B on the final and
a B+ in the course, and that was back when the average grade was a C.
Never underestimate the ability to produce grammatical English at a
rapid pace, even if it says little or nothing.
As bullshit goes, the original example strikes me as pretty mediocre
-- it almost says something (let's not be thinking that Donna's
naive), and it's hardly outrageous.
--
Bob Lieblich
Not all that judgely
FRAN
I won't tell hubby that! He'll be crying on your behalf.
Fran
Django Cat
I've just looked up 'Black Douglas' - a 'grain and malt blend' "which
appeals to Australians"?
Buy your man a proper Malt Fran, he'll get through the marking nae
problem.
DC
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
FRAN wrote:
>
> chrissy wrote:
> > How people use the term, or where it fits into "narratives" (a
> > favourite of the POMO crowd) may well tell us something about popular
> > expectations surrounding the policies associated with it or the way
> > people respond to it but it surely cannot "cause" anything beyond
> > letters to the editor or the occasional street protest or instance of
> > parochial angst.
> >
> > Finally, try as I might I cannot fathom the last sentence at all. What
> > relationship does government support have to the character or form of
> > the protests over globalisation? So that's mere gobbledegook.
> >
> When hubby sat down, to mark, he swallowed a glass of scotch to get him
> in the mood, and I joined him. After all the posters here missed what
> seemed obvious, I was beginning to wonder if it was simply the case
> that Black Douglas and marking papers don't mix, but I'm relieved to
> see that I wasn't alone in thinking this an intellectually execrable,
> thoough laughable post-modern drivel.
>
I'd rather like a paragraph from each of you that defines what
'post-modern' means. If it refers to it as something in reaction of
'modernism', include what that is too.
--
School Time
Husk of your mind bedecked with planks
Hand hewn by the well schooled shanks
To hold tight the juices from your soul
Before they're sucked clean out a hole
Like a black widow does its mate.
There's the bell, don't be late!
Django Cat
of recirculation')" <j...@nuj.net> wrote:
>
>
>FRAN wrote:
>>
>> chrissy wrote:
>
>
>> > How people use the term, or where it fits into "narratives" (a
>> > favourite of the POMO crowd) may well tell us something about popular
>> > expectations surrounding the policies associated with it or the way
>> > people respond to it but it surely cannot "cause" anything beyond
>> > letters to the editor or the occasional street protest or instance of
>> > parochial angst.
>> >
>> > Finally, try as I might I cannot fathom the last sentence at all. What
>> > relationship does government support have to the character or form of
>> > the protests over globalisation? So that's mere gobbledegook.
>> >
>> When hubby sat down, to mark, he swallowed a glass of scotch to get him
>> in the mood, and I joined him. After all the posters here missed what
>> seemed obvious, I was beginning to wonder if it was simply the case
>> that Black Douglas and marking papers don't mix, but I'm relieved to
>> see that I wasn't alone in thinking this an intellectually execrable,
>> thoough laughable post-modern drivel.
>>
>I'd rather like a paragraph from each of you that defines what
>'post-modern' means. If it refers to it as something in reaction of
>'modernism', include what that is too.
I'd rather like a new car, a holiday in the Seychelles. a bottle of
Laphroaig and a copy of the Genesis lyrics book thanks.
DC
Richard Yates
> you see what is not there and prefer to fill in the missing information
> with the information in your head.
This point is well illustrated using the following substitution"
"Despite its lack of definition, premistrofication, has quite a great
impact on society, the world and people as a whole. Its ramifications
are widespread, and many of them are caused by the improper use of the
term. In the 1990s, premistrofication became associated with economics.
There was a new premistrofication that was driven by the capitalist
economy. This as well as the fear of premistrofication as inevitable and
without any benefits changed the public's view of the world and led to
many people taking action to prevent its continuation. The ways in
which people have resisted premistrofication are varied even without
government support."
Richard Yates
chrissy
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
> FRAN wrote:
> >
> > chrissy wrote:
>
>
> > > How people use the term, or where it fits into "narratives" (a
> > > favourite of the POMO crowd) may well tell us something about popular
> > > expectations surrounding the policies associated with it or the way
> > > people respond to it but it surely cannot "cause" anything beyond
> > > letters to the editor or the occasional street protest or instance of
> > > parochial angst.
> > >
> > > Finally, try as I might I cannot fathom the last sentence at all. What
> > > relationship does government support have to the character or form of
> > > the protests over globalisation? So that's mere gobbledegook.
> > >
> > When hubby sat down, to mark, he swallowed a glass of scotch to get him
> > in the mood, and I joined him. After all the posters here missed what
> > seemed obvious, I was beginning to wonder if it was simply the case
> > that Black Douglas and marking papers don't mix, but I'm relieved to
> > see that I wasn't alone in thinking this an intellectually execrable,
> > thoough laughable post-modern drivel.
> >
> I'd rather like a paragraph from each of you that defines what
> 'post-modern' means. If it refers to it as something in reaction of
> 'modernism', include what that is too.
>
Having read some of what you write in other NGs you don't write as a
post-modern.
Post-modernism is a reaction to the empiricism and utilitarianism that
is seen as intrinsic to modernism. Oddly, given what I wrote above, its
point of departure is human subjectivity. In comparatively short order,
when the desire to reinsert the human subject and his or her
perspectives into the social world was expressed as something
measurable in academic and other discourses, the focus shifted from the
mind to human expression, texts (graphic and other), and the struggle
over meaning that these counterposed texts implied. The coterminous
growth of cyberspace gave enormous impetus to post-modern ideas, in
large part because the movement of texts and the intepretation of text
became far easier. People could be anyone they liked in cyberspace.
Graphics could be amended and put into new contexts with consummate
ease. People could be subjects and objects of "discourse" at the same
time.
Of course, the flexibility of post-modern thinking allowed its
supporters to slide easily between different intellectual traditions
and usages. The Critical Theory or "Frankfurt School" tradition (google
for Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas) started long before post-modernism,
but was enthusiastically taken up by post-modern thinkers, as was
"western" or humanistic or "cultural" Marxism, the work of Foucault,
Baudrillard, Baudelaire and the "deconstructionists" and semioticians
like Judith Williamson. John Berger's "Ways of Seeing" was an excellent
example of post-modern conceptualisations are considered a post-modern
approach to photography. Post-modern approaches can be found in art,
and it is widely asserted that Andy Warhol's pop-art was a source of
inspiration for them, as is "Indy music" and there are of course
post-modern architecture styles, where they are often interested in
"the meanings attached to public and private spaces". Mona Lisa
Overdrive and even "Hitchhikers Guide ..." are considered post-modern
literature.
Much of our contemporary language in academia is now inextricably
associated with post-modernism, regardless of its origins. (They would
like this since in their view, the whole of human endeavour can be
reduced to the struggle over meaning and text). Words like "narrative"
describe history, and Marxism and christianity are seen as flawed
because they are "metanarratives". The word "ideology" was largely
replaced in post-modernism by "discourse" (we can largely thank
Foucault for that), and especially "discourses on power".
That's a few too many paragraphs, but I was feeling generous, if that's
the best word for the action of someone retailing this guff.
cheers
Chrissy
chrissy
And to think I was anticipating a coruscating spray from you on the
virtues of plain speaking!
cheers
Chrissy
Peter Moylan
>>When hubby sat down, to mark, he swallowed a glass of scotch to get him
>>in the mood, and I joined him. After all the posters here missed what
>>seemed obvious, I was beginning to wonder if it was simply the case
>>that Black Douglas and marking papers don't mix, but I'm relieved to
>>see that I wasn't alone in thinking this an intellectually execrable,
>>thoough laughable post-modern drivel.
>>
>>Fran
>
>I've just looked up 'Black Douglas' - a 'grain and malt blend' "which
>appeals to Australians"?
>
>Buy your man a proper Malt Fran, he'll get through the marking nae
>problem.
A proper malt tends to be rather expensive in Australia. I suppose
that's OK if you take only the occasional drop, but a pile of 100
papers to mark can use up almost an entire bottle.
--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
[ ... ]
> > As bullshit goes, the original example strikes me as pretty mediocre
> > -- it almost says something (let's not be thinking that Donna's
> > naive), and it's hardly outrageous.
> >
> > --
> > Bob Lieblich
> > Not all that judgely
>
> And to think I was anticipating a coruscating spray from you on the
> virtues of plain speaking!
Plain speaking requires you to know something -- if only how to
confess your ignorance. When you're bluffing you need persiflage by
the bucketfull. If the teacher is buying bullshit, I'm selling.
> cheers
l'chaim
--
Bob Lieblich
Plain speaker (when possible) -- he hopes
Maria Conlon
> "FRAN" wrote:
>> Hubby is currently tearing at his hair in another round of marking.
>> I've disappeared to the PC to let him go to it. (Well that's my
>> excuse).
>>
>> One of his students provided the quote of the night.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> "Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a great
>> impact on society., the world and people as a whole. Its
>> ramifications are widespread, and many of them are caused by the
>> improper use of the term. In the 1990s, globalisation became
>> associated with economics. There was a new globalisation that was
>> driven by the capitalist economy. This as well as the fear of
>> globalisation as inevitable and without any benefits changed the
>> public's view of the world and led to many people taking action to
>> prevent its continuation. The ways in which people have resisted
>> globalisation are varied even without government support."
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> In terms of AUE discussions, I would have to give this student at
> least a "C" and possibly a "B+", simply because he used "its" in its
> apostrophically correct construction.
>
> (Unless the typography is FRAN's, in which case I might comment upon
> the period+comma in the first sentence. Then again, perhaps the
> correct "its" appears because of FRAN's typography.)
Do you mean the period (plus comma) following "society," or the period
following "society" plus the comma following "globalisation"?
By the way, I would have put a comma after "world" -- but I won't argue
that point. I've argued it quite enough.
And do we know for sure that there was more to this student's essay, or
even that it was an essay? Fran's "Tremendous concluding paragraph!!"
could have been sarcasm, indicating that something more should have been
said first, or could have referred to the concluding *sentence*. (I
haven't read a large enough sample of Fran's posts yet to make an
educated call about this.)
Maria Conlon
CDB
"Robert Lieblich" <robert....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42965E34...@verizon.net...
> [AEU restored. Tsk, Areff]
[...]
>
> I have faint recollections of writing similar stuff as a yoot. I
> once
> wrote an answer to an exam question (in a Humanities course) on *De
> Rerum Naturae* by Lucretius. Not only had I not read the book -- I
> couldn't remember the author's name.
*Eheu!
Steve Hayes
<cyber...@19--16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
>tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in
>news:1gx6f22.1gszm2fu3yym8N%tr...@euronet.nl:
>> I didn't get the joke when FRAN posted, and I don't get it from
>> this remark either. Surely the student is talking about the
>> anti-globalization protests that are occurring around the world,
>> done by the people who fear the power of multinational
>> corporations and the like. Except for a use of "its" without clear
>> referent ("to prevent its continuation"), what's the big deal?
>
>The big deal is that the writer says nothing in very many words. You
>are filling in lots of blanks, but the writer proves only that he or
>she is ignorant about "globalization". I learned absolutely nothing
>from reading the student's final paragraph. That's because the
>student said nothing. (I had to repeat that so you'd get it.)
I've had to edit enough academic texts where lecturers have said nothing in
many words to feel sympathy for the student. They often have very poor
examples to follow.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
FRAN
Pat Durkin wrote:
> "FRAN" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1117108270....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hubby is currently tearing at his hair in another round of marking.
> > I've disappeared to the PC to let him go to it. (Well that's my
> > excuse).
> >
> > One of his students provided the quote of the night.
> >
> > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> >
> > "Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a great
> > impact on society., the world and people as a whole. Its ramifications
> > are widespread, and many of them are caused by the improper use of the
> > term. In the 1990s, globalisation became associated with economics.
> > There was a new globalisation that was driven by the capitalist
> > economy. This as well as the fear of globalisation as inevitable and
> > without any benefits changed the public's view of the world and led to
> > many people taking action to prevent its continuation. The ways in
> > which people have resisted globalisation are varied even without
> > government support."
> >
> > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>
> In terms of AUE discussions, I would have to give this student at least a
> "C" and possibly a "B+", simply because he used "its" in its apostrophically
> correct construction.
>
> (Unless the typography is FRAN's, in which case I might comment upon the
> period+comma in the first sentence. Then again, perhaps the correct "its"
> appears because of FRAN's typography.)
As I recall, the student's typing was accurate, but it was mine that
was faulty as to the period and comma placement. That was probably the
Black Douglas typing.
Fran
FRAN
It was indeed the concluding paragraph. The sarcastic tone reflected my
view that the student had rather muddied the waters rather than tying
her thoughts into a neat and comprehensible bundle at the end.
Fran
>
>
> Maria Conlon
FRAN
Peter Moylan wrote:
> Django Cat turpitued:
>
> >>When hubby sat down, to mark, he swallowed a glass of scotch to get him
> >>in the mood, and I joined him. After all the posters here missed what
> >>seemed obvious, I was beginning to wonder if it was simply the case
> >>that Black Douglas and marking papers don't mix, but I'm relieved to
> >>see that I wasn't alone in thinking this an intellectually execrable,
> >>thoough laughable post-modern drivel.
> >>
> >>Fran
> >
> >I've just looked up 'Black Douglas' - a 'grain and malt blend' "which
> >appeals to Australians"?
> >
> >Buy your man a proper Malt Fran, he'll get through the marking nae
> >problem.
>
> A proper malt tends to be rather expensive in Australia. I suppose
> that's OK if you take only the occasional drop, but a pile of 100
> papers to mark can use up almost an entire bottle.
>
Too right! The stuff we drink still costs $25 on special!! It was a
compromise because I wanted a bottle of stuff that I found down the
markets for $10, but the hubby said I was just being stingy and refused
to countenance buying something with a picture of a drunken seafarer on
it. On the other hand, the other brands are up around $40. That's much
too pricey for my liking. I'd spend much of the time crying into it.
Fran
FRAN
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 14:16:24 +0000 (UTC), CyberCypher
> <cyber...@19--16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
>
> >tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in
> >news:1gx6f22.1gszm2fu3yym8N%tr...@euronet.nl:
>
> >> I didn't get the joke when FRAN posted, and I don't get it from
> >> this remark either. Surely the student is talking about the
> >> anti-globalization protests that are occurring around the world,
> >> done by the people who fear the power of multinational
> >> corporations and the like. Except for a use of "its" without clear
> >> referent ("to prevent its continuation"), what's the big deal?
> >
> >The big deal is that the writer says nothing in very many words. You
> >are filling in lots of blanks, but the writer proves only that he or
> >she is ignorant about "globalization". I learned absolutely nothing
> >from reading the student's final paragraph. That's because the
> >student said nothing. (I had to repeat that so you'd get it.)
>
> I've had to edit enough academic texts where lecturers have said nothing in
> many words to feel sympathy for the student. They often have very poor
> examples to follow.
>
>
That's true too. I've had my share of academic editing jobs, and some
of them were very taxing.
Fran
FRAN
I can't improve on that Chrissy. Why couldn't YOU be one of my hubby's
students? Hmmm .. on second thought, maybe not. [grrrr]
Fran
FRAN
meirman wrote:
> In alt.english.usage on 26 May 2005 04:51:10 -0700 "FRAN"
> <fran...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> >Hubby is currently tearing at his hair in another round of marking.
> >I've disappeared to the PC to let him go to it. (Well that's my
> >excuse).
> >
> >One of his students provided the quote of the night.
> >
> >|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>
> I don't think the paragraph says nothing. I think it says something
> not very well that is true, and includes some things that are not
> supported, not supportable, or false. Things in all three categories.
>
> How old was the writer?
Apparently about Chrissy's age -- 21.
>
> >"Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a great
>
> The word isn't defined (I think it is) or the limits of the word's
> applicability isn't defined (It's probably not well defined. Many
> notions aren't.) But it's not clear which he means.
>
As Chrissy pointed out above, the writer is clearly treating texts as
if they were actors in their own right. She focused on the claim that
the improper use of the term had produced "widespread ramifications"
but the same objection could have been made to the first sentence as
well. It's not the definition from which its impact comes, any more
than Darwin's theory of evolution causes people to evolve, or evolve
differently once he announces his propositions.
> >impact on society., the world and people as a whole. Its ramifications
>
> People as a whole is equivalent to society. Individual people might
> be what he meant, but he didn't say it.
>
FWIW the student was female. I'd sooner use the right pronoun.
> >are widespread, and many of them are caused by the improper use of the
> >term.
>
> He never gives examples of the improper use of the term.
>
> >In the 1990s, globalisation became associated with economics.
>
> I think it has always been associated with economics. Weren't there
> other terms for the ability to travel farther and more easily, or for
> the ability to make phone calls or send tv signals all around the
> world. Again, how old is the student. He could have looked this up,
> but I don't think the possibility of an alternative has occurred to
> him.
>
One of the problems common amongst students is to imagine, without
directly taking it on board, that what exists now has pretty much
always been the case.
> >There was a new globalisation that was driven by the capitalist
> >economy.
>
> In practice the systems of the countries involved may have been
> capitalist (even China), but I don't think it requires a capitalist
> economy anywhere to "drive" globalization. If communist countries
> could have produced enough to export, they would have and will. It
> doesn't matter if the government owns the means of production or if
> private parties do. What probably matters the most is
> industrialization (and the ability to produce more than be used
> locally), larger ships and cheaper transportation; and telegraph,
> telephones, television, satellites, and computerized data
> transmission, including audio and video.
>
The much greater ease with which data can be moved about is undoubtedly
a critical factor. It's now possible for many services to be outsourced
to anywhere with a connection to the web. The spread of culture too is
greatly facilitated by modern communication. Growing urbanisation in
the less developed world and the creation of a cheap, compliant low to
semi-skilled source of labour and the prodigious industrial growth of
China which has underpinned the US economy have all contributed to
patterns of trade that sit well with less robust barriers to the
movement of goods and services across national frontiers. The first
world wants cheap consumer goods and the less developed world (I use
the term ignoring the coercion that underpins it) is willing to give it
because relatively speaking their elites benefit from it.
> Is capitalism required? Isn't Viet Nam still communist? I see
> clothes for sale in the States that are made in Viet Nam.
>
Vietnam was never communist. It was commandist for sure, but it was a
largely agrarian economy that was smashed up by the conflict and that
had to retool itself quite quickly, in the teeth of US trade
restrictions.
> "Free trade" is not dependant on the economic system of the countries
> involved, but on tariff and treaty arrangements. I think the US
> should have a bigger than average tariff on imported steel, because
> steel is still a strategic defense material, and it's too late now for
> some industries, but I would support some tariffs on many other
> products. Perhaps we should have had a 25 or 35 year schedule of
> lowering tariffs that would have given time for people to work until
> retirement before their factories closed, while warning young people
> coming into the labour market that some industries would fade away.
>
I don't see tariffs as the way to go. I doubt it is ethical to try to
harm the trade prospects of a nation much poorer than one's own. I
think a much more all encompassing set of arrangements are needed to
look after everyone than tariffs can hope to provide in any event.
> But people wanted low prices right away, and politicians wanted to
> make them happy.
>
> > This as well as the fear of globalisation as inevitable and
>
> What is "this"? New globalisation or the capitalist economny.
>
> Why is the fear inevitable? Why is there fear at all?
>
> >without any benefits changed the public's view of the world and led to
>
> There are enormous benefits of globalization.
>
> There are also enormous detriments for many people, and he doesn't say
> what they are.
>
> >many people taking action to prevent its continuation. The ways in
>
> I think that, strangely, the people demonstrating at WTO meetings etc.
> are not those who are hurt by globalisation, and maybe it's my lack of
> reading or the press's lack of reporting, but I haven't heard them
> making the point of who is hurt or what should be done instead.
Some of it is driven by simple chauvinism or parochialism or a romantic
attachment to things past or all three. There are genuine issues of
workers rights and sovreignty both in the metropolitan power and the
LDCs involved, but these can only be resolved through a change in
organisation of the world economy more profound than most of the
anti-globalisers have in mind. Given the right underpinning structures,
I'm very much in favour of globalisation.
> Either that or they've made points I discarded as stupid. Or, by
> using force at these demonstrations or for some other reason, what
> they thought would highlight their story has instead caused the
> replacement of their story with stories about the violence. If it
> bleeds, it leads.
>
> It's no comfort, and I don't see how it can be, to the people who lose
> their jobs because manufacturing is moved to Malaysia or China, that
> elsewhere in the American (etc.) economy someone is making more money.
>
> >which people have resisted globalisation are varied even without
> >government support."
>
> You're right, he should name some. But, come to think of it, isn't
> this the final paragraph? Did he name any earlier?
>
>
No, she didn't. Again as Chrissy said, it's not at all clear what this
sentence even means to claim about the relationship between government
support and the protests.
> Look, I know about bad writing, I still cringe when I recall something
> I wrote in the 9th grade. I mitigated my problem by majoring in math,
> and later by working as a computer programmer**, which both probably
> require the least amount of writing of all similarly valued fields.
> If this guy doesn't get better, maybe he can do the same.
>
>
Perhaps. Maybe she needs to sit down with a piuece of paper and write
down all the things she thinks are relevant, seek support for them, and
then organise them into a coherent whole. Then she should pass it to
someone else who is literate to read and critique.
Fran
meirman
<fran...@hotmail.com> posted:
>> >In the 1990s, globalisation became associated with economics.
>>
>> I think it has always been associated with economics. Weren't there
>> other terms for the ability to travel farther and more easily, or for
>> the ability to make phone calls or send tv signals all around the
>> world. Again, how old is the student. He could have looked this up,
>> but I don't think the possibility of an alternative has occurred to
>> him.
>>
>
>One of the problems common amongst students is to imagine, without
>directly taking it on board, that what exists now has pretty much
>always been the case.
I certainly react that way sometimes. When I move to a new
neighborhood, I tend to think that all my neighbors have been there
for 20 years or more, even if they only moved in a week before I did.
Are there any communist countries?
>largely agrarian economy that was smashed up by the conflict and that
>had to retool itself quite quickly, in the teeth of US trade
>restrictions.
>
>> "Free trade" is not dependant on the economic system of the countries
>> involved, but on tariff and treaty arrangements. I think the US
>> should have a bigger than average tariff on imported steel, because
>> steel is still a strategic defense material, and it's too late now for
>> some industries, but I would support some tariffs on many other
>> products. Perhaps we should have had a 25 or 35 year schedule of
>> lowering tariffs that would have given time for people to work until
>> retirement before their factories closed, while warning young people
>> coming into the labour market that some industries would fade away.
>>
>
>I don't see tariffs as the way to go. I doubt it is ethical to try to
>harm the trade prospects of a nation much poorer than one's own. I
The goal is to help ourselves. We would not be tryign to harm anyone.
Those other countries have the whole rest of the world to trade with,
if they don't implement tariffs. Why do these other countries have to
industrialize in the first place?
>think a much more all encompassing set of arrangements are needed to
>look after everyone than tariffs can hope to provide in any event.
BTW, 21 is pretty old to write like this. Although the topic is
complicated and a lot of big words were used, I still thought she was
in high school. But my recollection of the others' work may be
faulty, or maybe I never knew.
s/ meirman
Posting from alt.english.usage
--
If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Town NW of Pittsburgh Pa. 0 to 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 22 years
FRAN
meirman wrote:
> In alt.english.usage on 26 May 2005 22:50:53 -0700 "FRAN"
> <fran...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> >> >In the 1990s, globalisation became associated with economics.
> >>
> >> I think it has always been associated with economics. Weren't there
> >> other terms for the ability to travel farther and more easily, or for
> >> the ability to make phone calls or send tv signals all around the
> >> world. Again, how old is the student. He could have looked this up,
> >> but I don't think the possibility of an alternative has occurred to
> >> him.
> >>
> >
> >One of the problems common amongst students is to imagine, without
> >directly taking it on board, that what exists now has pretty much
> >always been the case.
>
> I certainly react that way sometimes. When I move to a new
> neighborhood, I tend to think that all my neighbors have been there
> for 20 years or more, even if they only moved in a week before I did.
> >
I can always wow my students with descriptions of outside toilets
without sewerage, bakelite phones, the first video game -- air hockey
played on a B&W TV and descriptions of the operation of a telex
machine. They loom at me as if I have managed to survive the dark ages
-- a relic of an unimaginably distant past.
No. There are some countries that don't have functioning internal
market economies responsible for the allocation of goods -- North Korea
might be one, I'm not sure about Laos or the precise role played by the
market in Cambodia, but certainly these are not communist countries, so
much as highly regulated statist economies, with some market features.
> >largely agrarian economy that was smashed up by the conflict and that
> >had to retool itself quite quickly, in the teeth of US trade
> >restrictions.
> >
> >> "Free trade" is not dependant on the economic system of the countries
> >> involved, but on tariff and treaty arrangements. I think the US
> >> should have a bigger than average tariff on imported steel, because
> >> steel is still a strategic defense material, and it's too late now for
> >> some industries, but I would support some tariffs on many other
> >> products. Perhaps we should have had a 25 or 35 year schedule of
> >> lowering tariffs that would have given time for people to work until
> >> retirement before their factories closed, while warning young people
> >> coming into the labour market that some industries would fade away.
> >>
> >
> >I don't see tariffs as the way to go. I doubt it is ethical to try to
> >harm the trade prospects of a nation much poorer than one's own. I
>
> The goal is to help ourselves. We would not be tryign to harm anyone.
If you're trying to privilege your own domestic producers' goods and
services over another's purely on the basis of place of manufacture
you're certainly trying to deprive them of the income they might have
had on an ethnic basis.
> Those other countries have the whole rest of the world to trade with,
> if they don't implement tariffs.
So we say take your business elsewhere and set ourselves up as some
kind of Potemkin Village? And what if others in the first world adopt
the same view. Why would that not be reasonable?
> Why do these other countries have to
> industrialize in the first place?
>
So they can enjoy what we take for granted and what you suggest we
erect tariffs to defend?
> >think a much more all encompassing set of arrangements are needed to
> >look after everyone than tariffs can hope to provide in any event.
>
> BTW, 21 is pretty old to write like this. Although the topic is
> complicated and a lot of big words were used, I still thought she was
> in high school.
I teach high school and if she were a 15 or 16-year-old I'd not be so
harsh. But at 21 or so (she may have been a little younger -- perhaps
20) she really ought to have leanred how to put her ideas together at
tertiary level. According to the hubby, she's not a bimbo, but she's
obviously someone who has been allowed to get intellectually sloppy,
presumably by others.
Fran
Phil C.
of recirculation')" <j...@nuj.net> wrote:
>
>
>FRAN wrote:
>>
>> chrissy wrote:
>
>
>> > How people use the term, or where it fits into "narratives" (a
>> > favourite of the POMO crowd) may well tell us something about popular
>> > expectations surrounding the policies associated with it or the way
>> > people respond to it but it surely cannot "cause" anything beyond
>> > letters to the editor or the occasional street protest or instance of
>> > parochial angst.
>> >
>> > Finally, try as I might I cannot fathom the last sentence at all. What
>> > relationship does government support have to the character or form of
>> > the protests over globalisation? So that's mere gobbledegook.
>> >
>> When hubby sat down, to mark, he swallowed a glass of scotch to get him
>> in the mood, and I joined him. After all the posters here missed what
>> seemed obvious, I was beginning to wonder if it was simply the case
>> that Black Douglas and marking papers don't mix, but I'm relieved to
>> see that I wasn't alone in thinking this an intellectually execrable,
>> thoough laughable post-modern drivel.
>>
>I'd rather like a paragraph from each of you that defines what
>'post-modern' means. If it refers to it as something in reaction of
>'modernism', include what that is too.
I wouldn't worry about it. If you're ever caught doing something
slightly shameful such as laughing at Benny Hill or tucking your vest
into your underpants, just claim that you were doing it in a
post-modern ironic way and you'll be off the hook.
--
Phil C.
Donna Richoux
> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
> > CyberCypher <cyber...@19--16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
> >> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
> >> > John_Kane <John...@tricolour.queensu.ca> wrote:
> >> >> FRAN wrote:
[snip]
> >> >> > "Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a
> >> >> > great impact on society., the world and people as a whole.
> >> >> > Its ramifications are widespread, and many of them are
> >> >> > caused by the improper use of the term. In the 1990s,
> >> >> > globalisation became associated with economics. There was a
> >> >> > new globalisation that was driven by the capitalist economy.
> >> >> > This as well as the fear of globalisation as inevitable and
> >> >> > without any benefits changed the public's view of the world
> >> >> > and led to many people taking action to prevent its
> >> >> > continuation. The ways in which people have resisted
> >> >> > globalisation are varied even without government support."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tremendous concluding paragraph!!
> >> >>
> >> >> This is, obviously, a gallant attempt to answer a question
> >> >> about which the student knows nothing. Perhaps your husband
> >> >> has a budding politician in his class?
> >> >
> >> > I didn't get the joke when FRAN posted, and I don't get it from
> >> > this remark either. Surely the student is talking about the
> >> > anti-globalization protests that are occurring around the
> >> > world, done by the people who fear the power of multinational
> >> > corporations and the like. Except for a use of "its" without
> >> > clear referent ("to prevent its continuation"), what's the big
> >> > deal?
> >>
> >> The big deal is that the writer says nothing in very many words.
> >
> > Really? That's it? There must be millions of hundred-word passages
> > in existence that don't say very much -- why did anyone bother to
> > type out this one in particular?
> >
> >>You are filling in lots of blanks,
> >
> > Actually, I merely explained what the concern of "globalization"
> > is.
>
> Yes, you did, but the student didn't.
You assume s/he didn't. We weren't given a look or a description of what
went on before. All we know is that *something* did go on before,
because we were told this was a "concluding paragraph."
>
> >>but the writer proves only that he or
> >> she is ignorant about "globalization".
> >
> > Then you must think it is something different than I do.
>
> "Despite its lack of definition," says the student. That means to me
> that the student doesn't know what it means.
When I read something, I try to make sense of it. I start with the
assumption that the person *actually* tried to make sense, and not -- as
some of you apparently did -- that the person actually tried to make no
sense. Perhaps that was from Fran's build-up.
To read that phrase as if it meant "this combination of letters is
meaningless and has no dictionary entry" makes nonsense of the entire
paragraph, as you go on to say. (It *has* a dictionary entry, of
course.) But that's not the only way to read it. For one thing, to have
"lack of definition" is an established phrase on its own, particularly
in the visual arts, but not only there. A thing lacks definition if it
is not precise, if it is vague, if it is not clearly formed. Not the
word, not its acknowledgement by dictionaries or not, but the actual
object itself.
It makes perfect sense to me that different people define
"globalization" in different ways, some seeing their notion as a good
thing, some seeing their notion as a bad thing, and that a lot of the
fuss around it comes from people not meaning the same thing by the same
term -- that's a pretty common source of dispute.
So I read the intention of the writer as meaning "no clear definition"
or "no single definition" or "no agreed-upon definition" or "not
well-defined."
Sure, the writer could have done a better job at being clear and
concise. No doubt about that. But this falls short of the promised
hilarity. (Subject line.)
>If the writer doesn't know
> what it means, then why should I fill in my definition here? Why should
> you? That's one of the rhetorical devices that bullshitters use. They
> write with the knowledge that many people read into what they read that
> which is in their (the readers') heads rather than extracting what is
> actually on the page.
Or the writer pointed out, as I did, that conflicting notions of the
concept cause conflict.
>
> What I think globalization is is no more important than what you think
> it is when analyzing what the student here says it is.
Well, actually, I found it important that you and I do agree on what the
concept is, roughly. If it turned out that "globalisation" refers to
some technique of arranging circuits on a computer chip, for example,
then we'd be talking at total cross-purposes.
[snip]
I do appreciate the rest of what you said, but without seeing what else
the student *actually* wrote, I see no point in speculating whether she
supported her conclusions with details or not.
Which is not a request to see more, by the way -- I'm getting uneasy
over what right the original poster had in reprinting an excerpt from
the essay of a student of her husband's, without that student's
permission. How would the student feel if she knew that what she wrote
as part of her educational course was being held up around the world as
if it were an entertaining bad example? Do schools have ethical policies
about such things? It seems as wrong as reprinting someone's email. And
without even a boffo joke to justify it.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher <cyber...@19--16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
> > tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
> > > CyberCypher <cyber...@19--16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
> > >> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
> > >> > John_Kane <John...@tricolour.queensu.ca> wrote:
> > >> >> FRAN wrote:
> [snip]
> > >> >> > "Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a
> > >> >> > great impact on society., the world and people as a whole.
> > >> >> > Its ramifications are widespread, and many of them are
> > >> >> > caused by the improper use of the term. In the 1990s,
> > >> >> > globalisation became associated with economics. There was a
> > >> >> > new globalisation that was driven by the capitalist economy.
> > >> >> > This as well as the fear of globalisation as inevitable
> > >> >> > and without any benefits changed the public's view of
> > >> >> > the world and led to many people taking action to
> > >> >> > prevent its continuation. The ways in which people
> > >> >> > have resisted globalisation are varied even without
> > >> >> > government support."
> > >> >> > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Yates demonstrated how much content there was in the paragraph
in his post. I repost his paragraph:
[quote]
"Despite its lack of definition, premistrofication, has quite a great
impact on society, the world and people as a whole. Its ramifications
are widespread, and many of them are caused by the improper use of the
term. In the 1990s, premistrofication became associated with economics.
There was a new premistrofication that was driven by the capitalist
economy. This as well as the fear of premistrofication as inevitable
and
without any benefits changed the public's view of the world and led to
many people taking action to prevent its continuation. The ways in
which people have resisted premistrofication are varied even without
government support."
[/quote]
All of your objections are, I think, declawed and disarmed and debunked
by the substitution of a nonsense word for "globalisation". We can even
replace "globalisation" with "terrorism" or "undocumented immigration"
and the new paragraphs work just about as well.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor who fears premistrofication
intensely.
For email, replace English alphabet with hyphenated two-digit numbers
(ie include all leading zeros).
Django Cat
Moylan) wrote:
>Django Cat turpitued:
>
>>>When hubby sat down, to mark, he swallowed a glass of scotch to get him
>>>in the mood, and I joined him. After all the posters here missed what
>>>seemed obvious, I was beginning to wonder if it was simply the case
>>>that Black Douglas and marking papers don't mix, but I'm relieved to
>>>see that I wasn't alone in thinking this an intellectually execrable,
>>>thoough laughable post-modern drivel.
>>>
>>>Fran
>>
>>I've just looked up 'Black Douglas' - a 'grain and malt blend' "which
>>appeals to Australians"?
>>
>>Buy your man a proper Malt Fran, he'll get through the marking nae
>>problem.
>
>A proper malt tends to be rather expensive in Australia. I suppose
>that's OK if you take only the occasional drop, but a pile of 100
>papers to mark can use up almost an entire bottle.
Good point. I've got 30 exam scripts to mark this evening (usenet as
displacement activity yet again). Now, where's the meths?
DC
Chris Malcolm
I sometimes comfort anxious pre-examination students by telling them
what the agreed marking guidelines for a pass mark are: the student
appears to understand the question, and to know what kind of answer is
required, but doesn't have a clue what the answer is.
We all have to do our bit to acommodate our (UK) Govt's ambition to
get 50% of the population through university :-)
I recall the memo we lecturers received about our own behaviour when
invigilating student exams, during which we often mark student
homework or another exam. We were requested, when doing such marking,
to avoid laughing, grimacing, or making other expressions of humour,
despair, etc., since the students we were invigilating found this
upsetting.
One takes quite a different attitude to this kind of thing when one
has retired :-)
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Robert Lieblich
Gesundheit!
--
The Liebs
N.B.: The author's name was not given in the exam question
Donna Richoux
>
> Richard Yates demonstrated how much content there was in the paragraph
> in his post. I repost his paragraph:
>
> [quote]
> "Despite its lack of definition, premistrofication, has quite a great
> impact on society, the world and people as a whole. Its ramifications
> are widespread, and many of them are caused by the improper use of the
> term. In the 1990s, premistrofication became associated with economics.
> There was a new premistrofication that was driven by the capitalist
> economy. This as well as the fear of premistrofication as inevitable
> and
> without any benefits changed the public's view of the world and led to
> many people taking action to prevent its continuation. The ways in
> which people have resisted premistrofication are varied even without
> government support."
> [/quote]
>
> All of your objections are, I think, declawed and disarmed and debunked
> by the substitution of a nonsense word for "globalisation". We can even
> replace "globalisation" with "terrorism" or "undocumented immigration"
> and the new paragraphs work just about as well.
Not at all. I'm in the same position. Having been told this was a
concluding paragraph -- we're not changing that fact, are we? -- I
assume the mystery paper attempted to discuss the associations and
ramifications and benefits and whatnot of premistrofication, whatever
that is. I assume the writer knew what premistrofication was, and either
explained it or took it as a given in the field. Why should I assume
otherwise?
So, sorry, I don't see how that simple substitution affects my points
one whit, jot, tittle, iota, or crumb.
Richard Yates
> concluding paragraph -- we're not changing that fact, are we? -- I
> assume the mystery paper attempted to discuss the associations and
> ramifications and benefits and whatnot of premistrofication, whatever
> that is. I assume the writer knew what premistrofication was, and either
> explained it or took it as a given in the field. Why should I assume
> otherwise?
Substituting a nonsense word allows focus on the writing itself in two ways:
- It eliminates our tendency to not notice the gaps because we fill them in
from our own knowledge base (cf. confabulation).
- It highlights the vacuousness, tautologicality (?), and internal
contradictions of the writing.
It isn't just that, as a concluding paragraph, the writing does not include
the foundation for its summary statements. Rather, the problem is that most
of what you assume are just conclusions simply say very little, and use many
words to do so.
Dick
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher <cyber...@spymac.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Richard Yates demonstrated how much content there was in the
>> paragraph in his post. I repost his paragraph:
>>
>> [quote]
>> "Despite its lack of definition, premistrofication, has quite a
>> great impact on society, the world and people as a whole. Its
>> ramifications are widespread, and many of them are caused by the
>> improper use of the term. In the 1990s, premistrofication became
>> associated with economics. There was a new premistrofication that
>> was driven by the capitalist economy. This as well as the fear of
>> premistrofication as inevitable and
>> without any benefits changed the public's view of the world and
>> led to many people taking action to prevent its continuation. The
>> ways in which people have resisted premistrofication are varied
>> even without government support."
>> [/quote]
>>
>> All of your objections are, I think, declawed and disarmed and
>> debunked by the substitution of a nonsense word for
>> "globalisation". We can even replace "globalisation" with
>> "terrorism" or "undocumented immigration" and the new paragraphs
>> work just about as well.
>
> Not at all. I'm in the same position. Having been told this was a
> concluding paragraph -- we're not changing that fact, are we?
Of course not. But that doesn't make a difference. Concluding
paragraphs are not supposed to be vacuous.
> -- I assume
And this is your problem. You assume. A well-written conclusion will
certainly contain unexplained information. It is, in part, a summary
of what has been said in the body of the work.
> the mystery paper attempted to discuss the associations and
> ramifications and benefits and whatnot of premistrofication,
> whatever that is. I assume
You assume too much with too little evidence.
> the writer knew what premistrofication
> was, and either explained it or took it as a given in the field.
> Why should I assume otherwise?
Why should you assume anything at all? Unfounded assumptions cause
all kinds of real problems in the real world. I won't bother to give
examples.
> So, sorry, I don't see how that simple substitution affects my
> points one whit, jot, tittle, iota, or crumb.
Why aren't you assuming that it does? It would be consistent with
your demonstrated approach to discourse --- in this thread, at least.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
CyberCypher
[...]
> nothing in many words to feel sympathy for the student. They often
> have very poor examples to follow.
Good point, Steve. I agree wholeheartedly. This also explains why so
many adults have assumed for so many millennia why the younger
generation is going to hell. Every younger generation has had such poor
examples to follow in every way.
And I have the same problem with my Taiwanese medical authors. They use
whatever they find published in English-language medical journals as
models for their own writing. Unfortunately, most of the medical
writing they have to choose from is poor at best. But, like young
students, they don't know the difference and are happy to foolow the
leader without thinking critically about what they've said.
FRAN
Donna Richoux wrote:
>
> Sure, the writer could have done a better job at being clear and
> concise. No doubt about that. But this falls short of the promised
> hilarity. (Subject line.)
>
I grant that my idea of hilarious and yours may be quite different, but
the idea that "the lack of a clear definition" or "the misuse of the
term" could somehow bear upon the way globalisation affects people
struck me as very amusing.
>
> Which is not a request to see more, by the way -- I'm getting uneasy
> over what right the original poster had in reprinting an excerpt from
> the essay of a student of her husband's, without that student's
> permission.
This is a news group. We talk about the way people use English. This
was an example of English used in a particular context that also raised
a broader question about the influence of POMO on usage.
We quote published material without the express consent of the authors
here all the time. We quote user manuals, public statements of
politicians, things our friends and relatives have said, stuff we've
heard on the radio or on TV, other posts and so forth. To the best of
my knowledge, nobody here has ever sought express consent, and if they
have they haven't made that clear, and they are a tiny minority.
I am not making a profit out of this, nor defaming any person (since
nothing I've posted could be used to identify her, or the institution
at which she studies).
> How would the student feel if she knew that what she wrote
> as part of her educational course was being held up around the world as
> if it were an entertaining bad example?
She's most unlikely to know, but if she did find out, perhaps by
searching google, she could respond and defend herself. If all of the
people who know her remain blissfully ignorant, there is no harm, and
if she finds out, she doesn't have to tell anyone it was her so again
there is no harm. She can refute my claims posting anonymously. She
might actually learn something.
> Do schools have ethical policies
> about such things? It seems as wrong as reprinting someone's email. And
> without even a boffo joke to justify it.
>
What's a boffo joke?
Fran
FRAN
It's all about the outcome being measured. If "describes the nature and
function of ..." is an outcome, then to get the mark for that, they
need to demonstrate that. They can achieve that in a trivial way and
get a trivial mark, or do it comprehensively and get a brilliant mark
for that outcome.
> We all have to do our bit to acommodate our (UK) Govt's ambition to
> get 50% of the population through university :-)
>
> I recall the memo we lecturers received about our own behaviour when
> invigilating student exams, during which we often mark student
> homework or another exam. We were requested, when doing such marking,
> to avoid laughing, grimacing, or making other expressions of humour,
> despair, etc., since the students we were invigilating found this
> upsetting.
>
It might also constitute unwitting assistance to some, or perhaps
confusion for others, introducing an uncontrolled variable into the
testing procedure.
> One takes quite a different attitude to this kind of thing when one
> has retired :-)
>
That's true, but as a teacher, I get more than a bit annoyed when I see
mediocrity or worse. It's unavoidable in many cases, but we all have to
do our bit to raise standards.
Fran
Joanne Marinelli
>
>
> Donna Richoux wrote:
> >
> > Sure, the writer could have done a better job at being clear and
> > concise. No doubt about that. But this falls short of the promised
> > hilarity. (Subject line.)
> >
>
> I grant that my idea of hilarious and yours may be quite different, but
> the idea that "the lack of a clear definition" or "the misuse of the
> term" could somehow bear upon the way globalisation affects people
> struck me as very amusing.
>
> >
> > Which is not a request to see more, by the way -- I'm getting uneasy
> > over what right the original poster had in reprinting an excerpt from
> > the essay of a student of her husband's, without that student's
> > permission.
>
> This is a news group. We talk about the way people use English. This
> was an example of English used in a particular context that also raised
> a broader question about the influence of POMO on usage.
>
> We quote published material without the express consent of the authors
> here all the time. We quote user manuals, public statements of
> politicians, things our friends and relatives have said, stuff we've
> heard on the radio or on TV, other posts and so forth. To the best of
> my knowledge, nobody here has ever sought express consent, and if they
> have they haven't made that clear, and they are a tiny minority.
>
to my work in a sort of asinine psychological sparring with Tony Cooper, and
my work was quoted and altered without my consent, and I still take issue
with this. Your husband's student, by contrast, has no idea that you have
copied her manuscript in Usenet in order to make fun of her, and this could
lead to a liability issue if grades were altered due to this. I realize
technology has outstripped the law here, but we seem to have lost respect
for the intellectual currency of others. You did a stupid thing. Hopefully
it won't come back to bite.
Joanne
CyberCypher
CyberCypher wrote:
> Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > I've had to edit enough academic texts where lecturers have said
> > nothing in many words to feel sympathy for the student. They often
> > have very poor examples to follow.
>
> Good point, Steve. I agree wholeheartedly. This also explains why so
> many adults have assumed for so many millennia why
Ooops! This "why" should have been "that".
Tony Cooper
<Joz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Here you are wrong Fran, and I happen to agree with Donna. I posted an url
>to my work in a sort of asinine psychological sparring with Tony Cooper, and
>my work was quoted and altered without my consent, and I still take issue
>with this.
Since you bring in my name, Joanne, you might of mentioned that I was
not the one that quoted and altered your work. That was someone
else's doing.
Your work wasn't altered anyway. Suggestions were made on how it
might be improved, but what appears here is not an alteration of your
work. The person that did it did not attribute the revised version to
you.
As I remember it, you should have jumped on the suggestions the person
made. However, since the "work" had already been "published", it was
too late to alter it. For the person to have altered it, he would
have had to gone to the source and changed it under the guise of the
changes being yours.
Your elevator isn't going all the way up.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL
FRAN
Hmmm ...
As you may have gathered I am very interested in ethical behaviour. In
my opinion, every right that demands our respect necessarily advances
or protects some measurable legitimate or compelling interest. Ethical
behaviour starts from an appreciation of what such interests include
and choosing actions that do less harm than good to such interests.
Rights that advance or protect no measurable legitimate or compelling
interest are unworthy of respect and deserve to be ignored on every
occasion when some benefit arises from so doing.
It's conceivable that I've erred in publishing an extract from the
student's work, but just to satisfy my curiosity on the matter, perhaps
you'll identify the measurable legitimate interest I infringed here.
Either that, or you should outline some other basis for restraining my
posting above.
As far as I can tell there is not even a notional prospect that her
grades might suffer in some way. At the time I saw the paper, hubby had
already marked it, made his remarks and moved on. As a matter of
interest, some of the observations of posters here (Donna Richoux in
particular) caused him to reflect on whether he'd judged her too
harshly, before deciding that he hadn't as the rest of the paper was in
much the same vein. Instead of getting the standard 20 minutes -- she
got about 40 minutes with some advocacy on her side. Notionally, she
got an advantage, though in practice it made no difference.
As to me making fun of her, neither you or anyone can know who she is.
Nobody who knows her or is in a position to assist her thinks any the
less of her because of this posting. Even if they find this posting,
they won't know whose it is. So her self-esteem and prospects ought to
be unaffected.
On the other hand, we have all had an opportunity to consider the
issues you, I and others have raised in the course of this discussion,
which is surely a measurable public good. You may yet convince me that
I erred, and that too will be a good, because if so, all of us may be
less inclined to repeat my "stupidity".
Fran
Joanne Marinelli
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tbof91paa3jq467ss...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 02:42:08 GMT, "Joanne Marinelli"
> <Joz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Here you are wrong Fran, and I happen to agree with Donna. I posted an
url
> >to my work in a sort of asinine psychological sparring with Tony Cooper,
and
> >my work was quoted and altered without my consent, and I still take issue
> >with this.
>
> Since you bring in my name, Joanne, you might of mentioned that I was
> not the one that quoted and altered your work. That was someone
> else's doing.
>
you made the alteration. However, for the sake of clarification, you are
correct to say it wasn't you--unless you and Gary are the same person, which
might be possible but for the fact that Gary's brain must have been loaned
him from one of the smarter gators on the farm.
> Your work wasn't altered anyway. Suggestions were made on how it
> might be improved, but what appears here is not an alteration of your
> work. The person that did it did not attribute the revised version to
> you.
>
It was altered in a post in Usenet Tony, and Gary had no legal right to make
that revision in quotes, not even under fair use copyright law.
But I am to be blamed here for joining in with the zoo. What Fran did is
highly unethical, and also unkind, and frankly, I hope she gets into
trouble, but that isn't my call.
Joanne
Odysseus
>
<snip>
>
> - It highlights the vacuousness, tautologicality (?), and internal
> contradictions of the writing.
Tautologism?
--
Odysseus
Bob Cunningham
subject line caught my eye, and I would like to say again
that whenever I read a compilation of the sort the subject
line seems to indicate, I strongly suspect that most of the
examples have been contrived by teachers or other
non-students.
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Ground floor perfumery, stationery and leather goods, wigs and
haberdashery, kitchenware and food, going up.
First floor telephones, gents ready-made suits, shirts, socks, ties,
hats, underwear and shoes, going up.
Second floor carpets, travel goods and bedding, material, soft
furnishings, restaurant and teas, going down.
--
"In August Rudyard's listlessness called for another series of major and
very unpleasant medical examinations.... He later joked ... 'If this is
what Oscar Wilde went to prison for, he ought to have got the Victoria
Cross.'", Andrew Lycett, "Rudyard Kipling"
Gary Eickmeier
I am the guilty party Joanne referred to above. She posted the URL to
one of her articles and (I thought) was asking for input on it. I found
it easier to show the changes I would make as a re-write (of one
sentence) rather than try to describe them. I was talking to Joanne at
the time, not using her work as my own but just suggesting some changes
to her work.
I agree with you that we quote others all the time in this newsgroup. We
have to do that in order to talk about the use of the language. It is
typically someone saying something wrong or questionable, and then we
suggest improvements. In this case someone was offering up her own work
for discussion. Joanne got severely pissed because she can't take
criticism. She accused me of plagiarism and invented a new crime of
re-writing someone else's work. That was in February of this year, and
she has never let go of it. I have avoided her since, and I would advise
others to do the same.
Gary Eickmeier
FRAN
That said, I don't want to become involved in having a shot at her. I
read one of her exchanges with Bob Lieblich a while back and I
understand that she has some significant legal issues to deal with.
Undoubtedly, these would have fallen heavily upon her personal life and
I suspect that baggage is making its presence felt in her posts.
I accept you have some issues with her, and you must act as suits you.
Trolls and nazis aside, however, I'm disinclined to participate in
sending anyone to coventry.All of us here have something worthwhile to
bring to this place even if it's just our simple humanity. Everyone
should feel that others care about them, that they belong, and matter.
Joanne for all I know may think this such a place and I wouldn't want
it otherwise for her, because personally, I wish no person ill, not
even those whose ideas offend me.
Thanks for putting your side though.
Fran
Donna Richoux
> Donna Richoux wrote:
> >
> > Sure, the writer could have done a better job at being clear and
> > concise. No doubt about that. But this falls short of the promised
> > hilarity. (Subject line.)
> >
>
> I grant that my idea of hilarious and yours may be quite different,
True. Humor is elusive.
> but
> the idea that "the lack of a clear definition" or "the misuse of the
> term" could somehow bear upon the way globalisation affects people
> struck me as very amusing.
Odd, because that part is easy for me to understand. People having
different notions of what a term means often leads to behavioral
conflict. If some people think globalization is good and some think it
is bad, it is quite likely because they don't mean quite the same thing
by it. (As well as the likelihood about different perceptions of good
and bad.)
>
> >
> > Which is not a request to see more, by the way -- I'm getting uneasy
> > over what right the original poster had in reprinting an excerpt from
> > the essay of a student of her husband's, without that student's
> > permission.
>
> This is a news group. We talk about the way people use English. This
> was an example of English used in a particular context that also raised
> a broader question about the influence of POMO on usage.
>
> We quote published material without the express consent of the authors
> here all the time. We quote user manuals, public statements of
> politicians,
Those things all feel public, published, as are many of your other
examples.
>things our friends and relatives have said,
I think many of us are cautious about that one. Who wants to publish
something a close relative said and later find out they were horrified
by us doing so?
>stuff we've
> heard on the radio or on TV, other posts and so forth. To the best of
> my knowledge, nobody here has ever sought express consent, and if they
> have they haven't made that clear, and they are a tiny minority.
And yet, an amazingly voluntary ban exists on on the republication of
email. There is some domain of privacy, and the bond between student and
teacher might fall in that.
>
> I am not making a profit out of this, nor defaming any person (since
> nothing I've posted could be used to identify her, or the institution
> at which she studies).
I do realize that, and I'm glad. Truly public humiliation would be
unthinkable.
>
> > How would the student feel if she knew that what she wrote
> > as part of her educational course was being held up around the world as
> > if it were an entertaining bad example?
>
> She's most unlikely to know, but if she did find out, perhaps by
> searching google, she could respond and defend herself. If all of the
> people who know her remain blissfully ignorant, there is no harm, and
> if she finds out, she doesn't have to tell anyone it was her so again
> there is no harm. She can refute my claims posting anonymously. She
> might actually learn something.
True. Or she just might feel hurt and sulk and sue. No telling.
>
> > Do schools have ethical policies
> > about such things? It seems as wrong as reprinting someone's email. And
> > without even a boffo joke to justify it.
> >
>
> What's a boffo joke?
A.Word.A.Day--boffo
boffo (BOF-o) adjective
1. (Of a movie, play, or some other show) Extremely
successful.
2. (Of a laugh) uproarious, hearty.
noun
1. A great success.
2. A hearty laugh.
3. A gag or punch-line that elicits uproarious
laughter.
[Of uncertain origin. Probably a blend of box office
or an alteration of buffo, bouffe, or boffola. The
term was popularized by Variety, a magazine for the
U.S. entertainment industry.]
Donna Richoux
> As far as I can tell there is not even a notional prospect that her
> grades might suffer in some way. At the time I saw the paper, hubby had
> already marked it, made his remarks and moved on. As a matter of
> interest, some of the observations of posters here (Donna Richoux in
> particular) caused him to reflect on whether he'd judged her too
> harshly, before deciding that he hadn't as the rest of the paper was in
> much the same vein. Instead of getting the standard 20 minutes -- she
> got about 40 minutes with some advocacy on her side. Notionally, she
> got an advantage, though in practice it made no difference.
All right, I'm glad to hear she got a second chance. Thanks for this. If
the rest of her work didn't justify the ending, fine -- you two have
seen the whole thing, and the rest of us haven't.
> As to me making fun of her, neither you or anyone can know who she is.
> Nobody who knows her or is in a position to assist her thinks any the
> less of her because of this posting. Even if they find this posting,
> they won't know whose it is. So her self-esteem and prospects ought to
> be unaffected.
I know, but even then... Suppose a teacher reads essays to the class,
without identification, and tears apart one as a bad example. A common
"educational" technique, I suppose. Don't you think the one whose paper
it is is actually dying of shame, as opposed to open-mindedly listening
to these criticisms as positive influences to her writing? I don't have
any faith in humiliation and fear as positive eductional forces. (I'm
not saying you or your husband do -- you and I are just speculating
about the borderline, here.)
We respect the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, and the
lawyer-client relationship. Since an essential part of learning
something new is looking stupid and making mistakes, I think we need to
grant a considerable degree of protection to the classroom as a safe
space in which to err.
I don't know what ethical solutions may have already been worked out. Do
teachers ever say to their students anything like, "From time to time I
engage in professional discussions on the nature of writing and
effective education; I would like permission to use excerpts from your
work, without identification, as examples"? Or do they just go ahead and
use those examples as if they had unquestioned right to reprint them? Is
there a fine-print footnote in the college catalog that says "Your
writing belongs to us"?
> On the other hand, we have all had an opportunity to consider the
> issues you, I and others have raised in the course of this discussion,
Yes, I'm glad we had this chance. No real harm was done.
> which is surely a measurable public good. You may yet convince me that
> I erred, and that too will be a good, because if so, all of us may be
> less inclined to repeat my "stupidity".
It sounds as if Joanne is still hurting from her previous experience.
Pain can last for ages. Without a doubt, people can remember being
humiliated by teachers fifty, sixty, seventy years ago.
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
Donna Richoux
You're acting as if you make no assumptions, and as if making
assumptions is bad. I'm sorry, those positions appear nonsensical to me,
and I doubt we'll get anywhere further in this conversation.
it's been nice talking to you.
CyberCypher
Not at all, Donna. We all make assumptions. If we didn't, we couldn't
live and learn.
> and as if making assumptions is bad.
It all depends on what assumptions one makes and in what context. I
don't think that's a difficult concept to wrap your head around. I
don't think anything is inherently good or bad, including
assumptions.
> I'm sorry, those positions appear nonsensical
> to me,
Srawpersons are always nonsensical.
> and I doubt we'll get anywhere further in this
> conversation.
Not if you want to talk about strawpersons, we won't.
> it's been nice talking to you.
Somehow ("nan-to-naku" in Japanese) I don't think you're being honest
here.
FRAN
Donna Richoux wrote:
> FRAN <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Donna Richoux wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure, the writer could have done a better job at being clear and
> > > concise. No doubt about that. But this falls short of the promised
> > > hilarity. (Subject line.)
> > >
> >
> > I grant that my idea of hilarious and yours may be quite different,
>
> True. Humor is elusive.
>
> > but
> > the idea that "the lack of a clear definition" or "the misuse of the
> > term" could somehow bear upon the way globalisation affects people
> > struck me as very amusing.
>
> Odd, because that part is easy for me to understand. People having
> different notions of what a term means often leads to behavioral
> conflict. If some people think globalization is good and some think it
> is bad, it is quite likely because they don't mean quite the same thing
> by it. (As well as the likelihood about different perceptions of good
> and bad.)
> >
That's certainly a possibility in some circumstances, but if you look
at the precise wording:
"Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a great
impact on society ..."
It's a very big stretch to interpret "impact on society" as how people
think about it.
and then:
"[globalisation's] ramifications are widespread, and many of them are
caused by the improper use of the term".
I'm not exactly sure what a ramification is here, but it doesn't sound
like she's saying the spread of globalisation is likely to make
globalisation unpopular if people market it poorly.
That *might* be what she's saying but at the very least the context
which determines what people think ramifications of globalisation are
tends to locate them in other desirable or undesirable social patterns.
The preferred reading here makes this passage look very odd, and the
confusion seems amusing.
And I wouldn't think of it.
Ta ...
Fran
FRAN
Donna Richoux wrote:
> FRAN <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As far as I can tell there is not even a notional prospect that her
> > grades might suffer in some way. At the time I saw the paper, hubby had
> > already marked it, made his remarks and moved on. As a matter of
> > interest, some of the observations of posters here (Donna Richoux in
> > particular) caused him to reflect on whether he'd judged her too
> > harshly, before deciding that he hadn't as the rest of the paper was in
> > much the same vein. Instead of getting the standard 20 minutes -- she
> > got about 40 minutes with some advocacy on her side. Notionally, she
> > got an advantage, though in practice it made no difference.
>
> All right, I'm glad to hear she got a second chance. Thanks for this. If
> the rest of her work didn't justify the ending, fine -- you two have
> seen the whole thing, and the rest of us haven't.
>
> > As to me making fun of her, neither you or anyone can know who she is.
> > Nobody who knows her or is in a position to assist her thinks any the
> > less of her because of this posting. Even if they find this posting,
> > they won't know whose it is. So her self-esteem and prospects ought to
> > be unaffected.
>
> I know, but even then... Suppose a teacher reads essays to the class,
> without identification, and tears apart one as a bad example. A common
> "educational" technique, I suppose.
Though not one of mine. Ever.
> Don't you think the one whose paper
> it is is actually dying of shame, as opposed to open-mindedly listening
> to these criticisms as positive influences to her writing? I don't have
> any faith in humiliation and fear as positive eductional forces.
Nor I - as I said to someone else in another NG just recently,
curiously enough.
> (I'm
> not saying you or your husband do -- you and I are just speculating
> about the borderline, here.)
>
> We respect the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, and the
> lawyer-client relationship. Since an essential part of learning
> something new is looking stupid and making mistakes, I think we need to
> grant a considerable degree of protection to the classroom as a safe
> space in which to err.
>
I can't disagree there.
> I don't know what ethical solutions may have already been worked out. Do
> teachers ever say to their students anything like, "From time to time I
> engage in professional discussions on the nature of writing and
> effective education; I would like permission to use excerpts from your
> work, without identification, as examples"?
I don't. Partly for the reasons above.
> Or do they just go ahead and
> use those examples as if they had unquestioned right to reprint them? Is
> there a fine-print footnote in the college catalog that says "Your
> writing belongs to us"?
>
Not as far as I know, but as I said to Joanne, I consider harm and
benefit. Here the harm seemed manifestly trivial and improbable and the
benefit substantial.
> > On the other hand, we have all had an opportunity to consider the
> > issues you, I and others have raised in the course of this discussion,
>
> Yes, I'm glad we had this chance. No real harm was done.
>
> > which is surely a measurable public good. You may yet convince me that
> > I erred, and that too will be a good, because if so, all of us may be
> > less inclined to repeat my "stupidity".
>
> It sounds as if Joanne is still hurting from her previous experience.
> Pain can last for ages. Without a doubt, people can remember being
> humiliated by teachers fifty, sixty, seventy years ago.
>
> --
Undoubtedly. But some pain is useful too, though I always try to avoid
inflicting it.
> Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
And to you.
Fran
Robert Lieblich
I you believe the US diccies, "tautology" will serve. "Tautologies"
is even better.
Or is that too easy?
--
Bob Lieblich
A believer
Robert Lieblich
Good guess, Bob, but wrong.
--
Another Bob
Robert Lieblich
>
> Without a doubt, people can remember being
> humiliated by teachers fifty, sixty, seventy years ago.
It's much more fun remembering the times we humiliated the teachers
fifty and more years ago. I still recall the time ...
Well, no, let's not embarrass poor Miss Thistlebottom yet again.
--
Bob Lieblich
Mum
Lanarcam
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> Donna Richoux wrote:
> >
> > Without a doubt, people can remember being
> > humiliated by teachers fifty, sixty, seventy years ago.
>
> It's much more fun remembering the times we humiliated the teachers
> fifty and more years ago. I still recall the time ...
It is a stange mix of fun and of guilt.
Richard Yates
> > > contradictions of the writing.
> is even better.
>
> Or is that too easy?
It works well enough for me and, as a bonus, avoids excessive
premistrofication which, as we know, can have widespread ramifications.
Richard Yates
David T. Metz
> (I'm still hoping to hear what "POMO" means. See Subject line.)
I'm guessing "post-modern" in the epochal sense of the term, much akin
to e.g. "late modern".
David
David T. Metz
> "Despite its lack of definition," says the student. That means to me
> that the student doesn't know what it means.
We have no way of judging that since we haven't read the preceding
paragraphs. Perhaps the whole point is that the term is used in a lot of
different contexts without any proper definition. That would certainly
be close to the actual situation.
> What I think globalization is is no more important than what you think
> it is when analyzing what the student here says it is. The student says
> it's undefined. That may mean that the student knows that many
> different people define it many different ways, but that does not mean
> that the term is undefined, only that it has many different
> definitions, some of which conflict with each other.
Again: We have no way of knowing how he or she uses the term
"definition" in the preceding text.
>>>>>"Despite its lack of definition, globalisation, has quite a
>>>>>
>>>>>>great impact on society., the world and people as a whole.
>
>
> How does the writer know this? After all, an undefined phenomenon is
> difficult to recognize.
Not if it's a term, a word.
>>>>>>Its ramifications are widespread, and many of them are
>>>>>>caused by the improper use of the term.
>
>
> This is pure nonsense. What does it mean? "Ramifications" is one of
> those words bullshitters love to throw around.
It's an autopoietic argument ... ;-)
>>>>>>There was a new globalisation that was driven by the
>>>>>>capitalist economy.
>
>
> This is most interesting. If the term is undefined, how can we have
> both a new and an old globalization?
By characterizing the contexts of use.
David
Bob Cunningham
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
I'm inclined to take your word for it, but I am curious to
know how you can be so sure.
Frances Kemmish
Perhaps he has read the postings in the thread.
Fran
Bob Cunningham
Come to think of it, I'm not sure what you were saying I was
wrong about. It could be my suspicion that a lot of the
supposed ludicrous errors by students are really contrived
by their teachers or it could be my assumption about the
thread content.
I've now gone back and read the first posting in the thread,
and I see that I was wrong in my assumption of the thread
content. I thought it was about those lists you see where a
students are supposed to have said things like "In 1621 the
Pilgrims came to America, and the Indians helped them plant
corn on Plymouth Rock".
Incidentally, in regard to the lists I had in mind, I think
not enough weight is given to the possibility that a lot of
the supposedly dumb statements are really evidence that the
students had a sense of humor.
Bob Cunningham
> >>Bob Cunningham wrote:
It would have helped if he had said what I was wrong about.
He could have meant that I had guessed the content of the
thread wrong, or he could have meant that I was wrong to
assume the lists of purportedly dumb remarks by students
were to a great extent contrived by teachers.
I assumed the second case, but the first is entirely
possible.
I've now read some of the postings in the thread, but I
still don't know which of the two cases he was telling me I
was wrong about.
Stephe...@fmlynet.org
C> From: CyberCypher <cyber...@19--16-25-13-01-03.com>
C> Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote: [...]
> I've had to edit enough academic texts where lecturers have said
> nothing in many words to feel sympathy for the student. They often
> have very poor examples to follow.
C> Good point, Steve. I agree wholeheartedly. This also explains why so
C> many adults have assumed for so many millennia why the younger
C> generation is going to hell. Every younger generation has had such
C> poor examples to follow in every way.
C> And I have the same problem with my Taiwanese medical authors. They
C> use whatever they find published in English-language medical
C> journals as models for their own writing. Unfortunately, most of the
C> medical writing they have to choose from is poor at best. But, like
C> young students, they don't know the difference and are happy to
C> foolow the leader without thinking critically about what they've
C> said.
Those for whom English is a second language are often the worst offenders, for
that reason.
On the other hand, some of them can be a better example than some native
speakers... Joseph Conrad and Stanislav Andreski come to mind.
--
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.
--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)
Bob Cunningham
<exw...@earthlink.net> said:
[...]
> [...] those lists you see where a
> students are supposed to have said things like "In 1621 the
> Pilgrims came to America, and the Indians helped them plant
> corn on Plymouth Rock".
Farmers slaughter sheep for their wool.
There must be lists of those things somewhere. Can someone
say where?
Donna Richoux
Django Cat
From yesterday's batch:
'This process is illustrated in Finger 1'.
DC
R J Valentine
...
} Incidentally, in regard to the lists I had in mind, I think
} not enough weight is given to the possibility that a lot of
} the supposedly dumb statements are really evidence that the
} students had a sense of humor.
Not to seem to be backing up Mr. Cunningham a thousand percent, I used to
do it all the time, and it may have been the reason for my mediocre grades
in high school. To change the subject ever so slightly, in Latin class
one time the teacher (who may still be alive on the Atlantic Coast of
Florida, though I haven't seen letters from him in the _Miami Herald_
lately), once got furious when he noticed the guy next to me sleeping in
class, so he sharply asked him about the tense of the verb uncer
discussion, loud[ly] enough to wake him up. Since he had no chance at it
at all, I whispered to him (knowing that the teacher would notice that,
too), "Ablative," which he immediately announced confidently. (Cf. the
story about backing an industrial tractor into a truckload of steel rods.)
Now this teacher rarely laughed, but the flabber must have gasted him just
so, because he cracked up even before the rest of the class did, and the
guy got away with it clean.
Mr. Cunningham is correct (this time).
I also know editors who wrote those silly-sounding headlines for a living.
(Cf. the story about the picture of the bulldozer gloating over a vacant
lot over an unrelated story about surprise renovations at my apartment
complex.)
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@theWorld.com>
It's not for nothing I tell these stories.
Bob Cunningham
<r...@TheWorld.com> said:
[...]
> Mr. Cunningham is correct
I've long thought that Valentine probably would never learn
the difference between the arrogant, insufferable "John is
right" and the courteous "I agree with John".
I now think that he knows the difference and enjoys being
arrogant and insufferable.
CyberCypher
> <r...@TheWorld.com> said:
> [...]
>> Mr. Cunningham is correct
>
> I've long thought that Valentine probably would never learn
> the difference between the arrogant, insufferable "John is
> right" and the courteous "I agree with John".
>
> I now think that he knows the difference and enjoys being
> arrogant and insufferable.
Though your first supposition may sometimes be true, your second is
always true, regardless of the truth-value of the first.
John Dean
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 02:31:09 +0000 (UTC), R J Valentine
> <r...@TheWorld.com> said:
>
> [...]
>
>> Mr. Cunningham is correct
>
> I've long thought that Valentine probably would never learn
> the difference between the arrogant, insufferable "John is
> right" and the courteous "I agree with John".
Although when I'm right, I'm right. I hope you agree.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Robert Lieblich
I'm sure we all can agree that when you're right, you're right. So it
would seem to follow that you're right when you say that when you're
right, you're right.
Right?
--
Bob Lieblich
My brother's the lefty
John Dean
Up to a point, Lord Copper ...
--
John Dean
Oxford
R J Valentine
Mr. Cunningham is correct (this time [as usual]).
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@theWorld.com>
ObRon: But old! *Man*, he's old!
Mark Brader
> We respect the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, and the
> lawyer-client relationship. Since an essential part of learning
> something new is looking stupid and making mistakes, I think we need to
> grant a considerable degree of protection to the classroom as a safe
> space in which to err.
First, since an essential part of learning something new is looking
stupid and making mistakes, people should learn not to take it amiss
to be told that they have done so. There should be *no* "degree of
protection".
Second, what was posted did not look like a "mistake"; it looked like
an attempt on the writer's part at blustering around the fact that
they didn't know what they were talking about -- and *that's* a fit
subject for ridicule in any context.
--
Mark Brader | "Ooh, righteous indignation -- a bold choice!
Toronto | I myself would start with dismay and *work my way up*
m...@vex.net | to righteous indignation." --Murphy Brown
My text in this article is in the public domain, and open to ridicule
in turn.
FRAN
Mark Brader wrote:
> Donna Richoux writes:
> > We respect the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, and the
> > lawyer-client relationship. Since an essential part of learning
> > something new is looking stupid and making mistakes, I think we need to
> > grant a considerable degree of protection to the classroom as a safe
> > space in which to err.
>
> First, since an essential part of learning something new is looking
> stupid and making mistakes, people should learn not to take it amiss
> to be told that they have done so. There should be *no* "degree of
> protection".
>
In principle you're right of course -- all really useful learning comes
at the risk (the near-certainty actually) of failure, frustration, fear
and thus pain. Even Nietzche can teach us something! On the other hand,
most of us fear pain, and it's only a short step from that to learning
how to avoid it, not by reimagining it as development or empowerment,
but by avoiding learning and keeping within the pack. Since group
behaviour is also something we humans have learned to value, the result
of a "no protections" regime can be a sterile learning setting. I
imagine that's the point Donna was making.
What we teachers need to do, amongst other things, is to help students
develop risk-taking learning behaviour and to enjoy the rush with the
pain. Just as you wouldn't expect a trainee stunt person to take
his/her biggest risks when a novice, and would start with basic
manoevres, build in a safety net, a harness and so forth, so too with
novice learners it's important to convince them through their lived
experience that making mistakes is not inherently a personal slight and
even if, inevitiably, some think it is, that the cost is worth it.
> Second, what was posted did not look like a "mistake"; it looked like
> an attempt on the writer's part at blustering around the fact that
> they didn't know what they were talking about -- and *that's* a fit
> subject for ridicule in any context.
>
That's true enough in this case. I suspect, but can't prove, that the
student figured the hubby for a lefty and trotted out what she thought
he'd like to hear on the basis that he'd go easy on her for knowing
little and tossing it together at the last minute.
Fran
David T. Metz
> I suspect, but can't prove, that the
> student figured the hubby for a lefty
Please don't provoke such a stupid discussion. Left-Right has no value
for predicting attitudes towards "globalization".
David
Charles Riggs
<robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
>John Dean wrote:
>>
>> Bob Cunningham wrote:
>> > On Sun, 29 May 2005 02:31:09 +0000 (UTC), R J Valentine
>> > <r...@TheWorld.com> said:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> Mr. Cunningham is correct
>> >
>> > I've long thought that Valentine probably would never learn
>> > the difference between the arrogant, insufferable "John is
>> > right" and the courteous "I agree with John".
>>
>> Although when I'm right, I'm right. I hope you agree.
I know I do if you'll agree it has very different implications from
the trademarked phrase we apply to someone equally well known here.
>I'm sure we all can agree that when you're right, you're right. So it
>would seem to follow that you're right when you say that when you're
>right, you're right.
>
>Right?
Only in a Deanian sense, not in the Cooperian one. Although he's right
when he's right, we'd be left guessing if he said he was right.
--
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
>What we teachers need to do, amongst other things, is to help students
>develop risk-taking learning behaviour and to enjoy the rush with the
>pain.
I couldn't agree more, but how often would you find a teacher who'd
encourage that much freedom in her students? In my experience as a
student, they tend to be the you-do-it-my-way-if-you-want-a-good-grade
type of thinker. I learned some of the advantages of risk-taking after
graduating, not while I was in school.
--
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
I take it she meant 'left wing' by 'lefty', making it germane.
--
Charles Riggs
David T. Metz
So do I
> making it germane.
How? Left wing'ism does predict attitudes towards globalization (like I
said).
David