In a message dated 6/26/09 5:54:15 PM, [email protected] writes:
> I'm unsure what has evoked Kate's charge of "inadequate ridicule". Could > I > perhaps save the day by saying, "Michael, you are the golldangest fool in > all the Carolinas if you believe a damn dumb thing like that"? > you could have been funnier. This could have been out of the Joe Miller Joke Book. > > > (By the way, I here call your attention to the archive where you will find > > me saying several times that it's a mistake to think of any "work of art" > as > a single work: It is always a bundle of innumerable "acts of art".) > > Finally Kate wrote: > > [Cheerskep said: > The second half of my gripe was this: the thread is fruitless. Its > would-be > fruit is a compendium of the untenable and the obvious. > > Ah, they all say that.] > > I stick to my pop-guns: I ain't yet seen on this thread anything > defensible > that isn't old news. > it's always old news,and never properly defined. The untenable in pursuit of the unspeakable. What about this Worringer theory that bad times bring more abstraction? Is there anything collectively distinctive about the marks used? Kate Sullivan > > > > ************** Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)
