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.

Okay, so I just call the secretary for one of the deans. He's not in. I have a lengthy message. Not terribly complicated, just lengthy. I ask to be transferred to his voicemail. She says, I'll take a message. So, I give her the lengthy message. Then she says "would it be too much trouble for you to send that to me in an email." YES IT WOULD. If I wanted to send an email, I would have sent him one in the first damn place. What is WRONG with people?!?!?

My dean's assistant does that ALL THE TIME. It makes me roll my eyes like woah. Although, she usually doesn't let the person leave the lengthy message with her in the first place -- as soon as they say that, she says "Email me."

I think the bulk of the problem starts with bosses who don't check their own voicemail, but maybe that's just me.

After this Friday, I can get new glasses! YAY eye exam!!

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.

I'm not clear on the line drawing here, but something like the "Bible Code" is the perfect example of what I mean. IIRC, the Coders assigned numbers to words and letters and then used those numbers to discover secret messages that had been encoded into the Bible. So their code comes directly from a reading of the text, and you can give plenty of examples from the text that are cognizable, even spooky. But it's probably true that there's no code. It's a reading of the text with plenty of evidence-- but that doesn't mean it's not a crazy reading. Same with, say, a reading of Shakespeare that tells the future. You probably can construct plenty of textual examples that would seem to indicate that Shakespeare was some kind of Nostradamus. But that, also, doesn't mean that that reading is not implausible. And I would expect a professor to keep students from using those kind of analyses.

It's a reading of the text with plenty of evidence-- but that doesn't mean it's not a crazy reading.

AH! Okay. I get it now.

I like structure, so I give a lot of weight to internal consistency -- if a theory is load bearing, so to speak. However, wrt to the Coders, I'm interested to know which version of the Bible they're parsing, and how they handle issues like that.

It's not that I care that they're wacky -- it's that I suspect they don't have much of a case.

Randomly: Starsky and Hutch looks really gay.

Randomly: Starsky and Hutch looks really gay.

I've never even seen the show, and I can tell you those aren't the really gay moments.

Migraines should just not be allowed.

Once I'm in charge, I'm banning them outright.

Still going to crack the whip on too much perfume -- that's just a wrong thing, whether I'm in a migraine haze or no.

Bev and More does not have the yummy wine I had on Saturday at dinner. I am b. reft.

Not unsuggestive of a certain ... degree of physical intimacy. Good enough to slash from.

God bless the buddy action genre. It's so damned easy.