>
> having read dennis for nearly three years and being familiar with the
> intellectual tradition he works in, i think he's making a theoretical
> point
yes...
not to put words in his mouth, but a little, yes, i think he's
> trying to say that sometimes a blueprint with all the answers is
> destructive of the very freedom we hope to achieve and that it's better to be critical critiques, asking the right (good?) questions than to imagine
> we have the answers.
who could disagree with that? my question, again, is WHY did this even come up? i mean, nobody was disagreeing about this?
>
> shuckin' and jivin'? yeah sure. very white, upper middle class
> academic. but, trying to pin someone down by insisting they've answered a
> question precisely to your specifications
ok, this is beginning to get funny. all i wanted was an answer to the question. really. it was a very basic question which i wanted dennis to answer so that the terms of our debate would be more clear, something that does not happen enough in radical poltical circles. that's all. there were no "specifications", just a desire for a yes or no answer with perhaps some elaboration. if from his answer there was room for struggle, then we struggle, if not, then we settle on our differces for the moment, change the subject, whatever. i'm not calling dennis an ass-hole. is simply belive that he evaded an important question. if he thinks the question is not important or silly, then he should say so. but to answer the way he did was juevenile.
and to get them to concede defeat
> is.....what?
oh la la. kelly, i'm not trying to get anybody to concede defeat. i am trying to argue for a position which i think has great merit and i will argue with somebody if i believe they are a person of consciouss and if there is a weakness in their position. but i am not trying to rip anybody to shreds or belittle anybody. i think if you check out the thread, that will bear itself out.>
>
chris niles
> kelley
>
>