|
I've no problem with someone
developing a legitimate bias or even
engaging it in his criticism. But I then regard such criticism as
biased, and therefore poor.
Biased and unbiased criticism
are not the same thing.
There is such a thing as
objective criticism -- whether or not the
person also has a bias.
There's also such a thing as
balance, where balance is merited.
Why does it seem so difficult to
find someone who can comment critically
about Scn without at the same time engaging his bias?
Why don't we see more critics
here applying greater objectivity -- or,
as in the case of some, any at all?
Why don't we see more critics
here able and willing to comment favorablyabout anything in Scn which might merit such favorable commentary?
In other words, the *degree* of
bias tends to be repulsive. As is the
liberty with which so many here consider they are right to engage in
it.
I've read that there may be tens
or hundreds of thousands of lurkers.
Even if there were only a few hundred, why do you think so few of them
become regulars or participate in the discussion at all?
I suggest the primary reason is
the quality of the criticism, which
produces a pervasive quality of discussion which is, as I've stated
above, repulsive. |
