Foreowrd "The Habit of Point-for-Point Analogy"

[Malignd]

<<Your reading, Malign, is different than mine. I just
presented my own reading, that's all. I'm not out to
convince you you're in error. I really don't
understand why you speak of "unsupported opinions".
It's what the text says to me, and it really seems
clear. To me. You are free to hold to your own
opinion. Nothing wrong with that. Is this not why we
speak of "readings"?.

The "malignant" part was an unsuccessful attempt at a
pun. If you took offence, I withdraw it and apologize.
As to the -- indeed respectable -- point of view, I
just don't see how one would come to this conclusion 
based on the excerpt at hand.>>

It's because my reading is different than yours that I
responded.  Your response seemed certain of what was
being said; I found, reading, no such certainty.  It
sounds now as if there is no such certainty for you
either, merely your own take. .  

I'm not arguing that you're wrong.  Rather that,
rereading, the meaning seem ambigous to me, much as
with the passage from the SL intro that was debated
here.  It's what I meant by a "sploppiness of
attribution." 

And I took no offense at your pun, which of course I
got.  Rather, it seemed worth noting that I'm not
trying to distort what is written to force it to say
what it doesn't.
  


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com