Quote:

Nice conflagration of the posting. . but I wasn't making a case about Woodruff. . .but I was making a much-repeated case about private being allowed to compete with public. . .and a fairly unfair comment about AA/A but a private supporter. . .



Conflagration? This was the highlight of my morning; I spent time trying to find a basis for your usage in this context. I absolutely failed and thus decided it was meant less literally than symbolically (see below) -- and even so and I want you to know that my respect for you is such that I am the one who feels that I'm missing something (no sarcasm here -- absolute sincerity.)

Next...to my inadvertent dropping of a word in my post as noted by the other literary intelligentsia of this board -- whether it was "know", "understand", "comprehend" -- we'll never know, understand, or comprehend -- because my short-term memory is steaming pile of wrecked and disconnected semantically empty memes and I just can't remember what the heck word I was going to use.

Cat's Cradle -- the context for my posting was a reply to a SCISA fan, to which you replied, to which I replied. That's the reason for the dung-heap of a mash-up posting I made in which I made a quixotic attempt to reconcile why I had made my posting in the first place -- to which a conflagration of posts then occurred.

A couple of notes on this whole affair. First, there's a spreading round of fascinating posts regarding whether and how certain classifications, regions, and schools compare. It appears to be to be a relatively nihilistic exercise with the appropriate solution being scheduling -- but I was classically trained as an engineer and not a philosopher and thus the messiness of open-ended solutions has never appealed to me. That was really what I was responding to -- nothing else.

Again -- conflagration -- great term for the flaming posts that are all too often seen brightly burning but producing little in the way of constructive heat and light -- at least as it applies to my efforts!