>Maybe I'm obtuse here, but I'm having difficulty following the logic of
>this exchange. Doug posts a typically annoyingly vacuous remark of B.
>which is subsequentally shown to be vacuous, though "to be fair" not quite
>as stupid as one might have initially thought. But then it is claimed that
>there is no reason to forgive B's idiocy in any case-the implication being
>that we all knew he was an empty suit to beging with.
>
>What, then, was the point in posting the first remark? To keep us on our
>toes?
>
>Am I suffering from irony deficiency syndrome?
>
>I do admit to getting a good chuckle at french pomos receiving a good in
>the rear-fairly or unfairly.
I forwarded it in the first place because I thought it was pretty funny in itself, but also because it put JB in the same camp as some of our advocates of more traditional politics, who are skeptical of new organizational forms and networks, an agreement which would probably distress both sides. Ok, so maybe it was a cheap shot to say there's no reason to be fair to JB, but he puts me in a mood reminiscent of Suck.com's slogan - "A fish, a barrel, and a smoking gun."
Doug