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/
-
-
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 -
Instead, they upset enough of us in conference encounters that some of us did not want to go to this session at all. I was in another panel.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
In 5 seconds IRL he confirmed my reservations abt anything his session would do. Pattern based on CFP & alienating comments throughout conf.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I never saw the CFP, only the panel description. I am not surprised at the rest, sadly.
7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ADMedievalist @JonathanHsy and
Implies panel is aligned w/ support the problematic ppl, issues seen in CFP. More later in thoughtful long format /7
7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Why do you get to decide we were not addressing the stakes of that CFP precisely in terms of how it frames self fashioning. You are not
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.