...academics, in their greatest display of arrogance, think that they can get beyond the surface of things, and scholars do research that is supposed to look a certain way and you know that this paper isn't one of the ways because you don't have any quotes and a friend of yours just recently said, without meaning to be critical, that she wished she could do your kind of research because then she wouldn't have to go to the library, but you heard it as critical and so you begin to think of who you might quote and you remember one of your favorite lines in "A Hippocratic Oath for the Pluralist" from Wayne C. Boot's book Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism that reads, "I will publish nothing, favorable or unfavorable, about books or articles I have not read through at least once" (351), but you feel a little guilty using it since you've used it before and it is a fairly dated source - 1979 - but you believe it is still relavant since you know you are guilty of breaking the oath, an oath you believe in, but you wonder what does it mean to have "read" someone, such as Derrida for instance, whou you've qouted but only read in translation, only read all of a few of his many books and parts of a few others, read some summary books on his books, and read without fully understanding everything you encountered, so you wouldn't want to claim that you have more than a partial grasp of his work, if that; even still, you know the tradition of quoting that is supposed to prove you know something and you know that you aren't doing enough of it here to prove your case so you think you might cite some of the giants in ethnography, such as Gerry Philipsen, Dwight Conquergood, or James Clifford, but then you remember what Clifford wrote in Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century... (p. 148-149)