|
what i'm saying is that the argument about how to interpret the statements in the article isn't going to be resolved by heading down the path you're taking, i don't think. i'm also saying that the problems you point to apply to your own position.
in a classroom, the approach might work: but you'd have to provide other information--not so much the "anonymous source" but contextual information that'd function to make the political lines of the article/interpretation clear. it might work because you'd be building a shared informational pool and could assume that folk in the room were at least talking about the same thing using the same material basis (plus what they bring to it of course)....but the shared pool of information would provide a density of common referencepoints. here, we're trafficking in factoids.
really, we're running into one of the limitations of the messageboard form. articles are presented in more or less isolated form; you can't assume that the people reading either the articles or interpretations have anything like a shared information pool to draw from; you can't really build one because folk don't use these forums in ways that allow for it (you have to modulate how much information you bring into play else folk will shut down...it happens all the time). so things tend to devolve into point/counterpoint tv debate.
if you can figure a way around this, by all means go for it.
i haven't quite worked it out.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|