Doug Henwood wrote:
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >Gulick may of course be quite correct in his estimation. It is only that the
> >arguments he gives for it are utterly irrelevant outside the classroom.
>
> Why do you always have to adopt the tone of Yaweh speaking from on high?
Doug had earlier posted:
--------- John Gulick wrote:
>Also, some have argued (to my mind, fairly convincingly) that the "big
powers"
>in the WTO (especially the US) are using the threat of labor/environmental
>standards to get TW countries to kowtow to guaranteeing bio-tech and other
>TNC's intellectual property rights (high value-added exports from the
North).
Do they have any evidence for this, or is it just a neat theory?
----------
Now Doug and I have agreement in principle (One should not use "the tone of Yaweh speaking from on high") and a sharp disagreement as to the application of that principle. My response to John Gulick was as one human speaking to another, defining clearly the area of disagreement and containing implicitly the promise that a response will not be greeted by a complete change of subject and the hurling of another question. Doug's response, that of the tryannical 19th century patriarchal schoolmaster, is a contemptuous dismissal of the substance of John's argument and (at least given Doug's history as a questioner) the implict threat that if John is so silly as to answer him, he will have another 20 questions lined up, and of course......
Doug, it's your tone, not mine, which is the tone of Yaweh. It's you, not me, that stands on the lectern up above the crowd daring them to answer your questions.
Carrol