t wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 15:02:07 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold. First,
I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't disappoint.
Frankly, the idea that in order for someone to be able to discuss the
merits/demerits of socialized, collectivized, or other re-distributionist
command economy approaches they must complete that reading list or be
considered unworthy of debating the points is beyond absurd and elitist.
Perhaps so - and on the other hand there are those who believe that
skimming Cliff Notes or a Schaum Outline is sufficient to consider
themselves educated in a subject area.


Outstanding!

A perfect example of the intersection of Le Mot Juste with Le Bon
Mot.



tom watson

I dunno. I found it a rather vapid response. Here's why. I have
learned much in my life. The more I know, the more I realize
I don't know. Given any discipline, I've come to understand that
it is possible to come up with an arcane reference that makes
my sparing partner seem ill educated. It is simply not possible to
be an expert in every primary resource. That's why honest people
have to resort to synthetic summaries. For instance, in one lifetime
I cannot master the whole of, say, economic or political theory.
But we can learn from works like "Economics In One Lesson" by
Hazlitt. Demanding original Greek or Latin before conceding the
merits of a debate is cheap rhetorical theater...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/