It's your list; your rules; your decision. I have been accused of being brain-dead but not yet a cultist. I'm working on that. Now, as for Sri Lanka in 1972.....Well, maybe later.
Michael
At 12:03 PM 5/28/98 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
>Michael Eisenscher wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
>
>