Now that I have been gone "forever" . . . . . .

[Boris Godunov]

But I agree it seems bizarre to have a footnote saying "I agree with so-and-so." If you cite someone else's work in a furtherance of your own argument, it's pretty much a given that you agree with their position on the matter.

[Japher]

I agree with Boris. Yet, if that is how it's done, than so be it.

[Agathon]

But I agree it seems bizarre to have a footnote saying "I agree with so-and-so." If you cite someone else's work in a furtherance of your own argument, it's pretty much a given that you agree with their position on the matter.

It's not weird in Ancient Philosophy. In fact I'm a pretty sparse footnoter compared to some people. Pick up Cherniss "Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the Academy" for an extreme example.

There's just so much written, in so many languages, and over such a long period of time that you can't not do it. I think I reference Plutarch and some contemporary writer in the same reference at one point.

I really hate people who just put "Bob, p. 15." in a footnote to indicate agreement. I only reference like that if I am talking about Bob in the main body. If it is just a matter of acknowledging that someone else agrees with me, I do it the way I did in this example.

As I mentioned in the last post: that guy gets mentioned for most of the preceding 15 pages, since I am closest to him on this particular issue. If this was the first time he was being mentioned, there would be a couple of lines explaining his view and the relevant similarities and differences.

[Agathon]

I guess that I'm worried if I just referenced with "Bob, p. 15." it would be hard to distinguish between cases where I wanted to agree with Bob, and cases where I was setting him up for a slam.