Thank you for your comment. To answer your question about why I am doing this, I could reply that I like to solve puzzles, that I earned enough money and could indulge in an excentric hobby, or find another line already used by the Auditor. I could also epilogue about philosophical scepticism. Instead, I’ll simply return to the first sentence I quoted from Judy: <!— more —>
> I engage and get involved in policy discussions but do not advocate.
Something’s missing from that declaration: the fact that Judy does advocate. There are policy discussions to which she does not wish to add. But there sure are policies about which she advocate.
Notice how in the second quote “being an activism” is conceded, while “being an advocate is kept unsaid:
> Yes, I have stepped up my ‘activism’ regarding advocacy for integrity in climate research.
This concession followed weeks of pussyfooting around being or not being an activist. Nowadays, being an activist is now accepted behavior. But then we get the same pussyfooting about advocacy.
Since advocacy immediately follows from activism, I guess everything we said about activism can be transposed into our advocacy discussion. At the very least, we can see a similarities between the moves played. Here’s an example
- Y is an A.
- Who is not an A?
- Aren’t you an A too?
- Anyway, I’m more of a B.
- And Y is (or is not) a true A.
- But isn’t it true that B entails A?
- Perhaps, but I’m not A-ing about P.
- If one is A-ing-with-an-adverb, I don’t mind.
- Here’s a list of how we should do A-with-an-adverb.
Don’t you feel that most of our typological discussions have these moves being played, John?
There’s a similar game being played about modalities, triggered by words like “requires”.
All in all, there seems to be a abstract form for these rounds of pussyfooting. There are also characteristic speech patterns. Both interest me, the first because I study argumentation theory, the second because I like the poetry of it all.
Now that Killroy has found a round Tuit, I’ll try to offer a more constructive comment on Anderson’s claim later on this week.
Goodbye for now,