>As someone who is not particularly fond of sectarian harangues but who does
>repost articles I believe might be of some interest, I'd like to question
>your judgment on this one. While the article does conclude with a fairly
>standard (and boring) bit of dogmatic editorializing, the article provided
>some insight into Gates's history I had not seen published elsewhere. While
>it's your judgment call, and I respect your desire to keep the list from
>sinking into a pit of sectarian dogmatic harangues, I'd also suggest that
>you review your own standards for what is acceptable here. (In the interest
>of full disclosure, I acknowledge that I reposted this particular article to
>several lists, including my own distribution list. And those who know me
>know that I am not now nor have I ever been a particular fan of either
>Workers World or Troskyism.)
My general principle is that broadcasts emanating from party papers, especially when coming from people who join only to spread their pap and have nothing else to contribute, are a form of spam. Whatever useful information may lurk within is usually buried under tons of bad prose.
I watched the Spoons Marxism lists deteriorate through several incarnations. One of the major cuases of the deterioration was the volubility of braindead cultists, who end up arguing with each other about some unspeakable betrayal in Sri Lanka in 1972, driving everyone else away.
Doug