pardon this geezer!

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 10/6/1999 7:34:31 PM, preston at PILOT.MSU.EDU writes:

<< I still think he should get with the program, and I am prepared to defend
"should" in applied linguistic terms in spite of Ron's #2. This does not
mean that I will refuse to study racist, sexist, homophobic language use,
and I can do so quite straightforwardly, but I cannot conceive of
responsible study in these areas (quite aside from the study of "internal"
linguistic factors) as being without value-laden implications. >>

When I was in grade school, "Ron's #2" was a dirty word.

Otherwise, I find nothing objectionable in the statement reproduced above:
one can draw "value-laden implications" from one's scientific work, but doing
so is not in itself the science.

--Ron, who--unlike Dennis--thought that "hunk" was always a term of
approbation.