Now what sort of a cross is that, Cheerskep? I think Miller had a workable definition of mark. wc
--- On Thu, 6/25/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: marks > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 9:59 PM > During my sabbatical from the forum, > I dearly hope I missed it, but I > suspect I did not: the forum can go on for days ostensibly > discussing something > they call call "marks", without anyone bothering to > describe in detail their > notion of -- give what they think of as a "definition" of > -- "marks". > > This is characteristic of groups that love to bask in the > undefined > mystical. Artists specialize in this. > Press them to say precisely what they have > in mind with "art", "meaning", "signifies". "represents", > etc. and they > recoil like vampires from a cross. (Colorful, no? But in > some basic way a valid > accusation.) > > > ************** > Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy > recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000006)
