[New-Poetry] Re: Substitution of Terms

[Skip Fox]

Yet the 1911 Britannica is a wonder. Often good writing. Height of Victorian
scholarship. Entries by experts. And the world poised on the cusp of the
modern, but looking at the beginnings of war. Exciting time.

And then it is also the site of luminous curiosities. It contains a wonder
at the world which always seems to outpace those who would are trying to
contain it (in entries). 

And then to compare its entries with those in the 1914 supplement is to come
across wonderful puzzles. I.e., the entry on "evolution" in 1911 denigrated
Darwin's role in it as a main scientific discovery claiming that a number of
philosophers had presented its major concepts long before. But in the 1914
edition, Darwin is accorded his due and, if I remember correctly, "natural
selection," seen as central to evolution and underpinning the study of
biology. I wonder what happened.

Anyway, a note in Britannica's favor.

-----Original Message-----
From: new-poetry-bounces at wiz.cath.vt.edu
[mailto:new-poetry-bounces at wiz.cath.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Grumman
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:32 PM
To: NewPoetry: Contemporary Poetry News &Views
Subject: Re: [New-Poetry] Re: Substitution of Terms

>> maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> If you don't play, don't fuckin complain.
>
> I'm not complaining, merely stating the fact that Wikipoo is worthless.

Correction: not worthless, just no better than the Britannica.  (And I did 
play with it for a while--great idea that went blooey.)

> --Bob


_______________________________________________
New-Poetry mailing list
New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry