Judy clears this up totally, and I humbly proffer to all abused a blanket apology for transgressions occurring during my mistakenness. I had made the mistake of trying to interpret Mike Chase's comment completely out of context. The discussion is in fact much more clear-cut than I first understood it to be (my bad), and that is in no small part due to the clarity, in particular, of Mike's arguments and Phil's characterizations ("M. Chase's moral equivalency argument"). Let me now step back out to where I can better mind my own business (thanx anyways, Mr. Geary). Richard Henninge University of Mainz (his own business) ________________________________ Von: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Judy Evans Gesendet: Fr 11.11.2005 01:30 An: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Betreff: [lit-ideas] Re: French Help (was Re: Willie Pete) I thought I understood Mike (Chase) easily; I read it as (I mangle) "If my "moral equivalency argument" were troubling enough (to Enns and Yost) to awaken them (E and Y) from..." the clue's in the prior PE(EY?)> What is troubling is M. Chase's moral equivalency argument that > regularly rears its ugly head. nothing Frenchified about the reply MC>I'm delighted that it's troubling. If it were troubling enough to >awaken P. Enns and E. Yoist from the dogmatic slumber of their jingoist >self-satisfaction, I'd be even happier. hope that helps -- Judy Evans, Cardiff, UK mailto:judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html