(reply to CJ) Thanks for putting up those quotes. I always like it when that =20 happens. But could I ask one favor? For the benefit of the message =20board (which this goes to), could we have the source of the quotes, =20=
and could we perhaps avoid the bold and underlining and all of that? =20=
It makes it a little hard to read. We can get the important points =20 ourselves. Why not just retain whatever convention Ludwig has for =20emphasis in the original? In fact, because some email clients cannot =20=
process all of the dressing, why not just use allcaps for what =20 Wittgenstein has for italics?
OK, Sean, The quotes are not collected from different sections but each of the two emails is, I believe, pretty much one long continuous section from a classic portion of the INVESTIGATIONSSorry,but I didn't compile the stuff for academic purposes so I don't have
the actual page or paragraph citations in these notes.Also, I didn't intend the bold and underlining formatting for you guys, but that's
just the way I have it in my files for myself. Plus you should see the various colors in which the various bold and underlining is coded. Just wiped out the color on what I sent, but forgot to wipe out allthe formatting. One of the reasons I've been able to participate in the discussion the past few days is that i've been down with the notorious flu........so I've been
bit off in my attention to various of the fine points of things latelyPlus, I guess I must like it hard to read......more time to ponder the ponderous stuff..... .....besides who the hell can read W more than one phrase at a time anyway?
Will de-format everything next time. CJ WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4 TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf 3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz 1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/ FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009