<p>But I can see your point. If you saw the original draft, and thought it was great, then that would make it difficult to see the virtue in the changes they made.</p>
<p>^^
There is no virtue in the changes. The crazy women (he says endearingly) wanted what they wanted and popular opinion be damn. Hell, I married one of them. I know how this works. ;)</p>
<p>
I was hesitant to associate the hideous mascot with two authors I admire, however, the design would be more appropriate as cover art for the works of Poe or Steven King.</p>
<p>The Smith College “Spirit Mark” succeeds by portraying a Platonic Form of “Woman” without the overlay of feminity that would merely represent “a woman.” We recognize “a woman” through the lens of our place and time. “Woman” exists in our own place and time, but also beyond it, and, once understood, can be recognized in other cultures and times. So, therefore, it is not oxymoronic to describe a representation of “Woman” as “too feminine.” Feminity exists partially as a contruct, particular to our ethos, and should not be the definitive understanding of “Woman.”</p>
<p>@CrewDad: If you like Poe and King, try Danielewski.</p>
<p>Uh-huh. I’m sure when anyone first views the “Spirit Mark”, the first thing that will come to mind will be the stupid-sh** psychobabble and it will be love at first sight. My point was and still is that the “Spirt Mark” doesn’t succeed because no matter how good the intentions were to portray “Spirit” "Pride " “Sisterhood.” or is “consistent with Smith’s personality, as evoked in the campus research: a community that is edgy and feisty but not overly irreverent, an institution proud of its history, engaging the future with spirit, confidence and determination”, it fails and is repulsive. When a logo is the brunt of jokes and is intentionally not printed on Smith appeal and accessories lest they languish on the store shelf for eternity, one might conclude there’s a problem. :)</p>
<p>New brand this evening–Glenkinchie. You’re welcome to join me.</p>
<p>Gezz, Smith apparel. Blame the typo on my new spell checker and speech recognition software.
Or, as my wife reminds me…stay away from the Scotch when using a speech recognition program. To do otherwise is moronic and nothing good will come of it.</p>
<p>Psyhcobabble is a mimicking response as an alternative to critical thought. I can assure you that my writing is original, and may be influenced by what I’ve studied, but not by anything that I am imitating. As for the possibility of your not understanding it, well I’ll grant you that . . .</p>
<p>I’ll ignore the invective in your post on the assumption that you were already three-deep in single-malt – although I’m not a profane drunk, so it’s hard to relate to.</p>
<p>Btw, I would join you, but I’d ask you to apologize for your incivility first . . . Don’t be so quick to think I was criticizing your opinion, which has its own value. I was simply offering my own opinion, on an image you provided, and gave background on, that became of interest to me – so that’s hardly an attack on you.</p>
<p>1st) What makes you believe I didn’t understand your post? It wasn’t difficult to comprehend.
2nd)Your definition of psyhcobabble and mine are different. I have nothing to apologize for. I’m sorry you didn’t appreciate my attempt at humor. I was not insulting you nor did I believe that you were attacking me. I can’t comprehend how you could have read that into my post. No matter.</p>
<p>For effect, I might let slip a semi profane word now and then, but a drunk? Hardly. I’ve yet to have any Scotch. I drink very very little. Again, references to Scotch were a bad attempt at humor and in the case of my typo, an ignorant attempt at blame.
Have a great weekend.</p>
<p>After realizing that you assigned a valid meaning ( although not the meaning I intended ) to my use of psyhcobabble, perhaps an apology is appropiate. Done.</p>
<p>First, have a great weekend also. Second, if you didn’t intend to insult me, then I do not feel insulted.</p>
<p>But think about it . . . I took the time to offer an analysis of at least some consideration – for whomever might be interested – and had it referred to, reflexively it seems, as “stupid-[<strong>]</strong> psyhcobabble.” Generally your posts are humorous; but those words, directed at my writing, were not.</p>
<p>I’m glad you didn’t find my post difficult to comprehend. It was intended to be clearly and economically written, although my points were admittedly abstract.</p>
<p>When aren’t your points complex and abstract? 
</p>