Makes it difficult to assume that everybody's experience of last 50 years of scholarly tradition is the same.
-
-
That they are not willing to research what the convos are in the first place?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Or perhaps they are having a different conversation? As I said before, if the ppl planning the session meant it to be A, it makes no 1/
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ADMedievalist @dorothyk98 and
sense to criticise them for doing B badly. Among other things not unpackable in this format.
8 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
The frame is racist and has been discussed as such in numerous peer reviewed publications.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Repeating. No sense in this discussion in this format, especially at this time, when there is no genuine interest in dialogue.
6 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Never discussed what they said b/c I & no one else not there does not know. If they want a full convo, why not say what they said
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yet despite knowing nothing, you felt justified in implying colleagues would be DOIN IT RONG, & that s'one should report back on Twitter.
12 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
How exactly is that been a sign of inclusiveness?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
organizer does something reprehensible. Nor are panelists unanimous in thought. Or origin. So I am not sure who 'they' are. But I am sure2/
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like
The mess of that CFP which I believe was written by the organizer of that session. What is a problem is that this session does not feel
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.