to V. or not to V.

[kevin at limits.org]

> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:03:21 -0700
> From: "s~Z" <keith at pfmentum.com>
> Subject: To V. Or Not To V.
> 
> I'm going to go with davemarc's suggestion that we take a break from an
> organized reading. There is not a unified agreement that we should do V.V.
> And, there is a fair amount of bickering and complaining about how the list
> is going...not a good beginning point for another 'formal' read. So, I am
> abdicating as the organizer of V.V., and as host of section 1. If others
> disagree, I leave it to them to pick it up and make it go.
> 
The list has fallen into complete disaray, and, shall I say, intellectual
and communicative entropy, and you see this as a reason _not_ to do a V.
read?

Sometimes you read these things because you want to, and sometimes because
you need to.  I think the list needs _V._ more than anything.



Kevin Troy

"If compassionate conservatives don't know the meaning of 'is,' how will
they handle the more important helping verbs?"
--Peter Weyler, quoted in _Modern Humorist_