> The fact is, every time I see such language, I never know whether I'm
> just too ignorant to understand something that is in fact
> well-described in language appropriate to the task but
> incomprehensible to me, or whether it's obfuscating crap from
> chick--I mean, cowardly people who will disavow their attempt to
> exclude the unwashed.
Steve, why does it have to be disjunctive? Why would I--through your
words--have to see myself as one of those "cowardly people"? What has
been left out here, excluded? And for what purpose? Where does courage
enter the thinking that wants to be done here? What is thinking?
victor