TWAIN-L Archives

Mark Twain Forum

TWAIN-L@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mark Twain Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"L. Terry Oggel" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 17 Dec 1993 13:15:55 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>; from "robert a dagnall" at
16, 93 10:17 am:
16, 93 10:17 am
Reply-To:
Mark Twain Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (13 lines)
I'm struck by Dagnall's response today and one yesterday, purportedly
to Hoffman's thesis but actually to Hoffman personally.  Obviously,
they have very strong opinions--this subject has touched a tender
spot.  Hummm.  And no effort whatsoever to rebut Hoffman's evidence
(which he is careful to say is circumstantial) with solid,
controvening evidence (in fact, Dagnall explicitly says that's for
someone else to do--he'll do the easy thing and launch an ad hominem
attack on Hoffman).  Isn't this simply killing the messenger because
of the message?  Seems pretty regressive; a case of arrested
development?

[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2