Voice mistranscription
Ever since I published the Plaincourault Panofsky Wasson Allegro article in 2006 for the journal of Higher criticism I always argued in that article I argued there is something missing from Panofsky’s letter something is missing from Panofsky’s letter
recently I have felt bad because John Irving and I failed to spot the ellipses where Wason censored out Panofsky citation of Brinkman’s book tree stylestrees Stylizations in Medieval paintings
I have now connected those two to resolve and give myself a pass
I can’t really speak to you on Irving I don’t know if you’re on Irving Young Irvin did not tell me as far as I remember and we did not discuss as far as I remember that somethings wrong here citation needed where is that citation
there is a citation missing somewhere a citation has gone missing
that was definitely I wrote that in the article I wrote in the article that a citation is missing or that I said Tatian has gone missing I wrote that in the article
what did John Irving discuss that with me I don’t remember I believe that this was minors I believe that I noticed that a citation was missing and I believe that Jan Irvin did not comment on that I believe that Jan Irvin did not identify and recognize that a citation had gone missing
I did not suspect that Panofsky had provided what anyone would expect which is a citation I criticize Panofsky’s article I criticized Panofsky for failing to provide a citation
however I should have I am I have a short coming here in 2006 I have a short coming given that I complained where the hell is the citation like in what publication have the art scholars scholars treated explicitly the question do mushrooms me mushrooms and Kristen are do mushrooms mean mushrooms in Christian art
I should have connected the dots literally given that I was complaining in the article I criticized Panofsky for failing to provide what an anyone would expect a scholarly citation
where exactly have art historians discussed this question as such I complained about that in the article
and I copied wasson republishing of Pulaski’s article including wasson… So here I am ironically in my article I’m writing that panache i’m writing obviously one would demand a citation where the hell is the citation Panofsky is failing to provide a citation
and then I published wasson’s copy of Pulaski’s letter and I included wasson ellipses …
The dots I failed literally I I literally failed to connect the dots specifically those dots which was an added in place of Brinkman citation the citation a Brinckmann’s book by a Panofsky
I failed to connect those specific literal dots
of course it’s obvious now and I’m giving myself credit while also identifying where I failed to connect the dots literally I’m also giving myself of 2006 credit
I wrote in the article that I have identified a flaw a professional lapse and a gap and an omission from what we would obviously expect from Panofsky as a professional art historian obviously we would expect a citation
so I did identify that the citation was missing and I did include the dots the ellipses that Wason added in place of the citation but why failed to connect those dots those specific dots of the ellipses to what I was demanding and pointing out as missing in the article
are you I recent in the article surely surely obviously one would demand a citation why in the hell is there no citation where is the citation tell me where in this letter is the obvious mandatory requisite necessary citation
and then I printed the dots that Wason put in place of the citation – I failed to connect those dots to the obviously glaringly missing giant screaming gap a gigantic gap of omission cries out in the copy of Panofsky’s article where is the citation safety
you could say you could call them the citation needed… I didn’t connect those two:
1) number one a glaring lack of a citation where everyone on earth would expect and demand a citation and then number two
2) … Which are physically placed literally placed exactlywhere in this letter is the obvious mandatory requisite necessary citation and then I printed the dots that Wason put in place of the citation
I failed to connect those dots to the obviously glaringly missing giant screaming gap a gigantic gap of omission cries out in the copy of Panofsky’s article where is the citation safety you could say you could call them the citation needed… I didn’t connect those two 1) number one a glaring lack of a citation where everyone on earth would expect and demand a citation and then 2) number two… Which are physically placed literally placed exactly literally placed exactly precisely in the physical spot where we would expect a citation
why wasn’t I astute enough to realize that those dots are probably hiding where there is a citation but in in the literal location where I would absolutely expect the citation to be placed what I see instead is…
Therefore I should have speculated I will bet that those ellipses are hiding and censoring out a citation because that is the exact location where I would expect the absolutely expected citation to be provided but what we have in the exact spot
it’s almost like it’s almost like Wason has the word bibliography at the bottom of his reach reprint of the letter it’s as if Wason has given us the heading at the bottom called citations and bibliography and then he is placed ellipses there…
That’s the extent to which his I should’ve seen it I should’ve seen it because the ellipses are placed precisely in the physical location where I would expect and demand and where anyone on earth would expect and demand a citation right there at that location is where there are…
Jan Irving and I will we didn’t really dwell on this point I don’t remember discussing it but it was bothering me it was
the thing that bothered me the number one thing that bothered me about Panofsky’s letter was where is the damn citation this is worthless this is in no way an art historian writing this letter in no way meets the basic requirements because he claims that the treatment was made but he gives no citation that I can follow up to it
this is basic this is utterly extremely utterly the basics of scholarship as you have to provide me with the citation so that I can check your claims it
if you don’t provide a citation then you don’t have scholarship you just have arm waving claims
you claim that the scholars have discussed it but yet why don’t you provide a citation
and that was the number one thing that I wrote my number one criticism of Pulaski’s letter that I criticize them for my top criticism in my article that I criticized Panofsky for was you failed to provide a citation but I should have been astute enough to notice thatwriting this letter in no way meets the basic requirements because he claims that the treatment was made but he gives no citation that I can follow up to it this is basic this is utterly extremely utterly the basics of scholarship as you have to provide me with the citation so that I can check your claims it if you don’t provide a citation then you don’t have scholarship you just have arm waving claims you claim that the scholars have discussed it but yet why don’t you provide a citation and that was the number one thing that I wrote my number one criticism of Pulaski’s letter that I criticize them for my top criticism in my article that I criticized Panofsky for was you failed to provide a citation but I should have been astute enough to notice thatThe precise location where I would expect him to Bright pride provide a citation was instead… Which are obviously from Wassen there’s no way that Panofsky would have written those ellipses dots obviously and it’s manifestly obvious that of course Wassen wrote those dots I should have been able to interpret the… As I did dues
I should’ve written in the 2006 article I deduce that Wason have censored out a scholarly citation here because this is location of exactly where I would expect the mandatory requisite required citation to be provided
I would expect it to be provided right here and what’s here instead is… Therefore I bet that these… Are censoring out a scholarly citation! I wish I had written that that would’ve been very very astute of me and would have really resolved my demand something is very wrong here if there is something completely suspicious about Lawsons publishing this article there is no way any scholar would make this argument without providing a damn citation and instead we have… Therefore I should’ve written there for these… Must it it logically follows and it stands to reason therefore the citations must be hiding these… Must be hiding a citation because there is no way it is not possible for Pulaski to have written a letter without providing citations this is absolutely unacceptable the notion to what would make his assertion without providing a citation it it cannot be Panofsky cannot have made the assertion that art scholars have treated the matter the question without providing a citation Panofsky therefore we can be sure that pin asking must have provide as a citation and what we have instead in the exact location where we would expect and demand as a basic inherent requirement right in that spot is… And therefore it stands to reason that these ellipses which Wason placed wasson must have censored out a scholarly citation right here at these…
The Egodeath theory 