---David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
> I may have missed something, but I could only see one discussion of Timmons in that report. It is perilous to judge any paper by a second-hand report summary by someone taking notes, but if that is a fair summary of Vaccaro's arguments, Timmons stands unimpaired.
Perilous indeed! You missed nothing, David: my report mentions Timmons only once. His essay also came up briefly in Chance's paper, but my notes include no details, except that her comments echoed Vaccaro's. That I haven't read Timmons' study certainly doesn't help the report. However, since Chance's piece is slated for publication later this year, it should soon be possible to consider her argument more closely.