Regardless of whether I was wrong or right (and I was probably very wrong), I had been talking out of my ass based on nothing but hearsay. But get this: how much of academics is based essentially on hearsay? I mean, isn't it a treasured tradition amongst academics and philosophers to gather and discuss things, and then gather with a different group and discuss things more? Think of it this way: I've probably seen Lake Erie few enough different times that I could count them on two hands. My main experiences with this body of water was one time of swimming, a time or two of having my feet in it, and.... hearsay and reading! And I talked about it like I was some sort of expert or something and this was completely normal in my head...?

I do wonder, though, how much academic information and philosophical notions get dilluted in a perpetual game of telephone, or of videotape dubbing in which a generation is lost with each copy.

To be honest, I had no idea whether what I was saying had any merit, even though I had heard people who (supposedly) knew what they were doing talking about it. Then again, I had no idea whether what Amy was saying had merit (though I would trust her more because I generally trust her and she had an experience there).

Then again again, maybe I should just shut the-fuck up.