Then, he diverts our attention. He claims that his real critique is that she is wrong about Milton, yet instead of explicating his point, he returns again to her supposed agenda the agenda Pechter claims is not at issue. Unfortunately, Froula takes his bait by defending herself, which gives more matter to Pechter s invention and keeps us still focused on the person her rather than the issue her actual argument. Even more unfortunately, she adds a counterattack, which continues to divert our attention and pulls her into his text. Ad hominem appeals abound.
Straw man hangs out.
Pechter misrepresents Froula s purpose. Instead, her project is drawn from Woolf and is both pedagogical and epistemological. He claims that Froula uses such diversionary tactics. Pechter draws a false analogy, one that further demonstrates his misrepresentation of Froula and her purpose and, perhaps, his own inability or unwillingness to understand other epistemological assumptions. The issue for Froula is to examine pedagogies, learning, and canon-formation and their effects.