Carl Remick wrote:
> >From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
> >
> >>geez, yosh, this sales pitch is kinda working. but you and me, kid, are
> >>supposed to be mortal enemies.
> >
> >Kelley, you make it sound as if LBO-talk were the W.W.F.!
>
> Yeah, as if! At least the WWF's able to connect with the public, something
> that the LBO list would seem incapable of doing ;-)
Carl, this is something like saying that that quantum mechanics doesn't help one to repair an electric stove. Discourse necessarily operates at different levels in different contexts. For example, it would be rather strange for a 1000K analysis of Hegel's theory of right to appear on this list. It would be *equally* strange for an agitational leaflet (i.e., an attempt to "connect with the public") to appear on this list.
Now, a couple years ago I created a subfolder entitled "Material for Pantagraph Letters" (The Pantagraph is the local newspaper) in which I file posts that contain interesting raw material which I could use for a letter to the editor (or a leaflet at a rally or forum, etc) -- in other words material which could be used to reach the public. But those posts would be worthless for that purpose if *they* were written as "letters to the editor" -- for then they would not contain enough raw material for me to select from.
I am aware that you put a smiley at the end of your post -- but actually I think it's a rather poor joke. It really is important that we keep clear in our minds the different levels of discourse. To demand that posts on this list "reach the public" would make them actually useless for reaching the public.
Carrol