Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (57223)	10/5/1999 1:32:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Its really too bad about this book Dutch. Just from the standpoint of someone who likes to read history and biography... this is a major disappointment to me. I won't buy the book. Why did they pick this guy Morris, anybody know?

To: Ilaine who wrote (57223)	10/5/1999 2:31:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

<<<One might of course dismiss Morris' technique as committing the fallacy of imitative form, matching an artificial narrative with an inauthentic subject. But some would argue that Reagan's rise to fame was the contradiction of that fallacy. >>> Is that the proof that LH is an extreme leftist ideologue? In the first sentence, LH states, conditionally, (both sentences are conditional) that one might interpret Morris's choice of an "inauthentic" narrative device as being appropriate in a work devoted to an "inauthentic" subject. So far that's hardly even political. There are many right wingers who think Reagan was a puppet, and not grounded in reality, though they still liked what happened during his presidency. In sentence two, he sorta takes it back. Again a conditional, and giving credit to those who would take the other position, that Reagan was not "inauthentic" at all, as his worldly successes demonstrated to them, he proposes that from that point of view, the "imitative fallacy" would have been proven wrong, or "contradicted," by the fact that an artificial narrative has been [successfully, he feels] constructed about an authentic subject. What you have provided is a blinding example of LH's aversion to taking any definite political position at all. But let's say LH had omitted the second sentence. Is it your position that anyone who feels Reagan was "inauthentic" must have that position as a "political" one? Or even as an "extreme left wing ideologue"'s one?

To: Ilaine who wrote (57223)	10/5/1999 2:46:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

BTW, what was your reaction to the get-home-and-make-love-to-my-wife anecdote to which this post was a response? And the concentration camp photographer one? (He had never left the country.) From the same book, and there are LOTS of books I don't have here, here's another one I'd also like your reaction to, and that of the others who think he was so grounded in reality: "... it was on the European trip including Bitburg that Reagan demonstrated again his ability to visit countries without anybody's ever noticing. Heckled in the World Parliament by protestors shouting 'What about Nicaragua," Reagan retorted. 'They haven't been there. I have.'" He hadn't.