Ah, judgement, thou art fled to brutish beasts....

[uwvax!astroatc!gtaylor@harvard.harvard.edu (Mais, ou sont les neiges d'antan?)]

>>Incidentally, since you have seen fit to make condescending remarks
>>about our relative knowledge of art, it's not out of line for IED
>>to mention that he graduated from Harvard (with high honours) in art
>>history; received his M.A. in nineteenth-century painting from UCLA; and
>>will receive his Ph.D. in same from Columbia this October. Please
>>let him know if your own credentials greatly exceed his.

Seeing as I am the poor son of sharecroppers, and grew up in a tar-paper
shack where the only books I had were Michael Nyman's "Experimental Music:
Cage and Beyond" and a battered copy of Gregory Battcock's "Minimal
Art" left behind by some plantation owners who were just passing
through, I must hang my poor head for shame-I must truly now stand
revealed before you as one of those horrible ahistorical yahoos who 
have so conspired to trap those so noble and magnanimous as andrew 
in the squalid mire of this benighted age-a time  wherein such a 
large number of my fellow yahoos (and now even the fair Ms. Trowbridge 
has joined our besmirched ranks-if only for a moment [Hi, Sue!])) take a
base delight in coarse lampoon of andrew's devotion to his image of
Ms. Bush, and of his painstaking efforts to make himself perfectly
clear by the consistent and unassailable factuality of his impassioned
missals. 

His analysis and gracious treatment of those who make light
of him should give us all both a cause for deeper self-reflection
and a role model which we would do well to emulate. Perhaps the day
may come when we, too, can stand on the lofty heights 
and feel his loneliness-that of a true romantic marooned amidst
the dreadful detritus of pluralism, scepticism, and cynicism of 
the late 20th century. Trapped-like Howard the Duck-in a world he
never made, condemned to have his every serious effort at clear,
reasonable and factual discourse answered by the lowest of taunts and
jeers. 

Even the persona he devises and the whimsical characters which
so enliven his lonely crusade (and-by extension-ours, should we aspire
to agree with him and cast off our blinders and naughty taunts) are
objects of scorn again and again. How can he be denied even the most
meagre and harmless of charades?-the uncharitable wretches. Why do 
they persist in harping on this minor point to no avail, when there is so
much more about Kate to more fruitfully discuss? Why, one could raise
the level of this discussion and ennoble oneself by discourse with
andrew instead of these same dreary ad hominems.  Must the barbarians 
disport themselves with such gleeful and dreary repetition on these 
tired old themes and never even glimpse their own stupidity? How can 
they be so content with the kind of self-deception that comes from 
knowing, deep inside, that they are incapable of modifying any of 
andrew's words? He has again and again invited discussion, and felt
those quiet washes of pleasure at holding an unassailable position
with as great a regularity. But what is this-yet another fruitless
posting that again fails to address the issues? It strains the charity 
of one's heart.