Chris Burford's Comments

kelley kwalker2 at
Mon Oct 9 08:29:31 PDT 2000

At 10:05 AM 10/9/00 -0500, jf noonan wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, kelley wrote:
> >
> >
> > nonsense. on both counts. leo wasn't rude initially. and politie
> emails
> > will not necessarily elicit polite emails in response.
>Rubbish. He lied about H's position.

this is regular occurence on this list. why do you think angela left?

>Just the sort of scumbag
>liberal cold warriorism that was supposed to be out of fashion.
>Asshole outta crawl back into the last century where he belongs.
>[And I think most (that care) know I am not the ideological
>buddy of either Jim or Yoshie.]

i have no post indicating this. did i miss it? all i have is jim addressing leo in the tpi and leo's response, the one that chris picked up on. in any case, i haven't read enough of leo to make a judgment. when michael pollack suggests that a post is too long and therefore encourages flamage i'm a bit uhhhh surprised. as for the the second part, again, a polite email wouldn't elicit a polite response and it's disingenuous to suggest that. treating people like they are ignorant is pretty typical for the list, as well. your crits are more precise, but you'll have to mail me relevant post b/c i don't have it.

i fail to see how leo's position is cold war liberalism. sounds to me like the just war position taken by michael walzer. oh yeah, that's right walzer isn't a real marxist.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list