I don't think the above can be backed up, no.

I thought libkitty was talking about an interpretation that could be backed up with the text -- her hesitation was in attributing intent to the author. Which is pretty much the line I'd draw if I were into crit.

So wacky sounding isn't the problem for me -- unsupportable by canon is.

Vortex, did you send it to her in e-mail?

The super cute pink frames, however did not work for me.

Why not.

ION, I'm miffed because Newbury comics didn't have the PROFIT dvds even though they are supposed to be out today. I hope they didn't get their release delayed.

It was nice to find out it wasn't quite as gross out as I feared, though.

My problem is when whoever is analyzing sees C and gives that perogative over B, even if there's nothing in the text to support C either.

This is just another way of saying an unsupported or bad analysis-- and everyone's against that.

So, bon bon, are you saying as long as a theory holds up under scrutiny, with evidence, then that is a valid interpretation?

I don't know if you're kidding or not, but no, that's not what I am suggesting.

Why not.

The bridge didn't work right.

But I wouldn't mind ordering these because it looks like the bridge should be wide enough.

as long as a theory holds up under scrutiny, with evidence, then that is a valid interpretation

If you have evidence that holds up under scrutiny, isn't that the definition of the scientific process?

One of my favorite English profs once handed a paper back to me and said, "You know, I don't agree with a single thing you said here. But you backed it up, so you get an A."

Which goes a long way to explain why he was one of my favorite English profs.

I should really learn my home phone number. It takes me years to call and check my messages (approx) and I can't be trusted to give it out.

I don't know if you're kidding or not, but no, that's not what I am suggesting.

Nope, not especially joking. In this post: bon bon "Natter 37: Oddly Enough, We've Had This Conversation Before." Aug 9, 2005 12:24:37 pm PDT you respond to ita's question about something being backed up and you say that you don't believe it can be backed up.

I'm not really arguing at all, just trying to clarify and to think about how I think about interpretations/analyses I read.

Also, randomly, I realized Beverages and More ALSO has Torani syrups, which has made it possible for me to enjoy my peach Italian soda.

If you have evidence that holds up under scrutiny, isn't that the definition of the scientific process?

I think reproducible results in experiments is closer to the scientific process.

What's applicable here are the fundamentals of old school philosophy Rhetoric and Logic.