Re: Wild Lunatic Ravings Against Formulaic Writing -Reply

[Carl Glover <glover@msmary.edu>]

Dear Kevin,
	Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy in my post.
	And thank you for not calling me a "pig-headed idiot."  That would
not have been polite, would it?
	But above all else, thank you for the marvelous paralipsis.
There's nothing better than starting off the weekend with a fine trope.
					Warm regards,



					Carl W. Glover
					glover@msmary.edu

On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Kevin Davis wrote:

> Carl Glover writes:
> 	"However, to suggest there is no evidence to 
> support the usefullness of formulaic writing directly 
> challenges the anecdotal evidence offered by several 
> readers of this list.  Perhaps you haven't had time to 
> read those posts, Kevin, but some have argued that 
> on a limited basis they have made productive use of 
> the 5-paragraph essay.  To discount the validity of 
> their experience I think moves the argument from straw 
> man to ad hominem."
> 
> Carl,
> You left out an important word.  I said that no *Empirical*
> studies supported teaching formulaic writing.  Anecdotal 
> evidence is indeed interesting, but it hardly proves 
> anything.  Maybe the students succeeded because of 
> the 5-P format. But maybe they succeeded because they 
> had a caring teacher who presented things clearly.  
> Or maybe they had a new attitude about writing *before* 
> the format was introduced.
> 
> Neither did I say the 5-P did harm.  The empirical studies
> suggest that ALL other ways of teaching writing produce
> superior results.  That doesn't mean that the 5-P produces
> no results, only that it is an inferior method.
> 
> Finally, I don't think I attacked anyone personally, which I
> believe is required for an ad hominem argument.  Had I said
> that you were a pig-headed idiot for leaving out the word 
> "empirical," that would have been an ad hominem argument,
> but I didn't say that.
> 
> WR,
> kevin
> 
>