xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>Well this discussion has taken an interesting semiotic twist.
>
>At 06:21 AM 6/27/01 -0700, you wrote:
>>Are you saying that, even though phil and dianes claim agreement, "taken
>as
>>shared" is problematic, or are you posing particular "ideal-internal"(1)
>>processes for unpacking what is not appropration?
>
>unpacking what is not appropriation?
>Naww. Taken as shared is fine w/ me. It was meant in humour; a bit skewed,
>I see. I retract it. Assuming that's agreeable,
>
>Judy
>
*please* do continue to persue this semiotic twist!! of course it started
silly, but it's not
without its bizarre fascination, wot?
What is retraction in a context that is "taken-as-shared?"
diane
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
vancouver, bc
mailing address: 46 broadview avenue, montreal, qc, H9R 3Z2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:44 PDT