> I suppose it goes something like:
> My source quotations address the issues.
> Your source quotations miss the point.
> His source quotations are completely irrelevant and untrue.
This is an ironic example of the (rare) irregular noun form in English. A more famous example is: I have an independent mind You are eccentric He is completely round the twist
Peter's point, surely, is that each of us posts source quotations *we* feel to be appropriate, while dismissing those posted by others as (take your pick) out of date, superceded, too long out of print to be gospel, never printed for good reason (the "wastebasket" corpus), obviously in error, etc. etc. Not that he (and only he) is the arbiter of Gloranthan correctness -- although, each within our own skulls, communities and campaigns, why shouldn't we *all* assign this role to ourselves?
Recognising that all of us are occasionally wrong -- and, indeed, that any of us will occasionally come up with something so *brilliant* that it's worth binning our own conflicting theories -- is a sign of strength,=
not inconsistency. That said, holding to your own theories and interpretations in the face of a general consensus otherwise is *also* admirable:=
the problem, I think, arises when we either "belittle" our "opponents" (i.e. our co-creators), or misunderstand what they're saying (sometimes due to linguistic problems, sometimes to over-speedy refutation, sometimes, I'm forced to say, to sheer laziness). A protracted argument between two people who aren't speaking to each other is not much fun to watch...
::::
Nick
::::
Powered by hypermail