schedule change?

[John Bailey]

Hear, hear. I don't think the list quiet should ever necessarily be
taken as disengagement. I've been enjoying the last few weeks' posts
and I reckon the latter chapters of the book have some of the most
debatable bits we're going to encounter. Let's not rush 'em.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Michael Bailey
<michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a few days off coming up.  One of my plans is to go back and
> write responses to Peter Petto's notes;  you can also count on me to
> respond to just about any posts you make on chapter 15...
>
> also, I thought I was sensing a "turning back" towards the book in recent days
>
> John Carvill, I think, and Robin, both posted affirmations of how they liked the
> book, and that sort of statement is usually followed by some textual
> analysis, if
> only to justify the position one has taken.
>
> I myself was finally able to focus in on the book again after some interesting
> "real-life" side action...
>
> so anyway, I'd be inclined to not compress the reading schedule any more than it
> already is.
>
> One thing that other hosts may not be egotistical enough to have thought,
> but is my working assumption, is that silence means consent.
> In other words, my comments as host, many of them anyway, were
> met with no comment.
> Obviously, that means there was the resounding agreement of "nihil obstat" and
> they have passed immediately
> into Holy Writ, from whence they shall pronounce righteously in perpetuo...
>
> (-;  peace out...
>
> Mike  (ps - really do enjoy your comments.)
>
> --
> - "The whole point of life is to have a story" - Jeremy Cioara
>