no. my answer indicates that i'm sick of the salivating and the rubbing of hands whenever ken joins the list and writes about habermas and lacan. your post was bait, a troll, etc.
perhaps defensive of someone who i love and care about, but it is not unfounded. i've seen the three of you, and others, attack ken unmercifully for years now and i'm tired of and i surely am NOT going to rise to your flamebait.
kelley
>I keep arguing that the debate over what "the left" should say to people
>and how "the left" should say it is silly until we have a program of
>struggle going that alerts people that we have something to say. So far
>no one who thinks Habermas important has ever said anything that made me
>say, gee, I ought to read Habermas insttead of one of the couple hundred
>books that I know I should read in the next few days. I don't regard an
>intellectual or a leftist as really serious until they take with deadly
>seriousness the fact that for several hundred years it has become
>impossible for anyone to read all the books and articles and posts that
>he/she should read. This answer to my question shows that you aren't
>serious about Habermas.
>
>Carrol