From: clayton stirling bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Apr 03 1998 - 07:02:37 EST
Many thanks to Daniel for a most thorough and thought provoking post. I read
it several times and found that Daniel has plumed the depths of this question
in a most impressive manner. I do have one residual question.
Daniel Riao wrote:
> Beside, note that for some theorists the assertion that "the
> "unmarked" element is neutral while a "marked" element etc." is not a
> theory, but a postulate, and therefore it needs no proof.
I am rather fond of questioning postulates (assumptions). Is it not valid to
ask these folks why the consider this to be self evident?
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:20 EDT