At 07:00 PM 11/28/00 +, you wrote:
> If you can say what you mean in plain English prose, why not do so?
such artifices would be nugatory if performed by the current author.
(actually, that's not jargon at all. But it's academic style blather.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellar
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jim asks:
>Justin, what's wrong with Marxian jargon? should we reject all Marxian
>jargon and stick to the currently-dominant jargons ("entrepreneurial,"
>etc.)? should we also reject philosophical or legal jargon, or is your
I said:
(though David does not, you will be
>>happy
>>to hear, use any Marxist jargon).
>
Jim asks:
>Justin, what's wrong with Marxian jargon? should we reject all Marxian
>jargon and stick to the currently-dominant jargons ("entrepreneurial,"
>etc.)? should we also reject philosophical or leg
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/28/00 11:38AM >>>
Justin, what's wrong with Marxian jargon? should we reject all Marxian
jargon and stick to the currently-dominant jargons ("entrepreneurial,"
etc.)? should we also reject philosophical or legal jargon, or is your ire
simply aimed at that of Marx?
(
