Oppresseder than thou

[Mathew Forstater]

Charles- After I sent that post I read your next one and then went back and read a
couple of your previous ones.  You are right.  That would not be an accurate
characterization of your posts, and I withdraw it.  The disappointing thing is that
the exchange has generally not been as useful as it could have been, because the
tone and the little daggers.  Snit and Frances make some good points, but I don't
think you all are really that far apart. But I have the benefit of conversations
with you on these issues earlier in the life of the list, before Snit and Frances
came aboard, I think. Mat

Charles Brown wrote:


> Mat,
> What posturing and sarcasm do you
> find in my post on this ?
>
> Charles
>
> >>> Mathew Forstater <forstate at levy.org> 11/18 4:46 PM >>>
> At the same time, as one who has appreciated the insights of both charles and
> snitgrrl in the past, I have to admit that the ratio of useful communication to
> sarcastic remarks and posturing is very small in their recent exchange. you
> have to really dig through a lot of unfortunate crap to get at the gems in this
> one.  not either one at their best.  why is it so uncool to be nice or give
> someone the benefit of the doubt on this list? mat
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Frances Bolton (PHI) wrote:
> >
> > > Now, I personally was unthrilled to get thousands of words on Buddhism on
> > > this list. But I wouldn't say I found it oppressive. And I would
> > > never have the effrontery to suggest that it doesn't "belong"
> > > here.
> >
> > Right you are. I have a very inclusive definition of what belongs here.
> > Which sometimes results in more volume than many folks would like, but
> > that's the price of (small-c) catholicism.
> >
> > Doug