>I tried repeatedly to understand what your point was in the last exchange
>and failed. I was not ducking your questions. I did not understand them
>despite several attempts to try to respond to you. If I fail to grasp the
>question you are asking, after several tries I figure the polite thing to
>do is stop yabbering. It wasn't going anywhere. What was I supposed to do?
two days prior, you thought they were good questions! if you don't understand, then you should ask me. instead, you project onto what i've written and we get nowhere.
i was asking: what if these guys are really really bad guys? what if they keep terrorizing. what if it's not enough to "just say no to US imperialism and racism?" as i said, these come up in our meetings. if you'll recall, carrol claimed that even bringing bin Laden & co to justice in terms of a legal proceeding was against left principles because the US injustice system sucks and no matter what anyone's crime he wouldn't and we shouldn't support it.
anyway, it's all hypothetical but i think a very real possibility, though not necessarily now. i think it's very real in the sense that i doubt that "the revo" will have clear lines of demarcation. remember, Yoshie had claimed that this might just be the beginning of the revo. Will the revo advanced when we fight for peace against US imperialism and war against fascists?
>I think just posting right-wing material without comment at the present
>time is a bad idea because the right is trying to recruit from the left.
>When I said the posts were "uncritical" I meant just that. Just posting
>these right-wing posts without explanation is a bad idea becasue not
>everyone will automatically know that they are to be examined as an
>example of fascist or bigoted recruitment. I have no problem with people
>posting right-wing material for discussion if it is framed in some way.
>But I have even criticized my friend Michael P. for doing it. And as a
>social researcher, may I ask if you have visited the web page I posted and
>read any of the articles that talk about this by other authors?
of course i have and i've directed several of my libertarian friends to your page AND i just posted the kellner piece on a bunch of soc lists.
>Because if you have, I would expect you to understand the problem or at
>least be aware of the argument and be able to disagree with it. The irony
>here, is that what I am arguing is that the lack of context is what is
>wrong with such posts.
you are criticizing a specific practice here. your recent general post to the list did not mention this practice. you did not explain the nature of what you meant by "uncommented on".
i understand your concerns. i do not share them about THIS list and the people who post here. if i post some rightwing POS on the list it's because I'm aghast and want to be consoled by others who share my horror since there aren't many places where people will be outraged. but you would count that as an instance of something else than what i'd intended it as. true, it might fly around the net some more, i don't know. but somehow i doubt that i'm that important that what i post gets forwarded or thought about more than casually.
> I just had a long and interesting back and forth with Charles Jannuzi
> that, despite a few barbs, turned into an exchange where we ended up
> agreeing to disagree and along the way I certainly learned a few things,
> and I expect he did as well because he thanked me for a bibliography.
i thought that was another jab.
>I do not think people on this list are dupes of David Duke. I am tired of
>people starting out discussions by suggesting I have no idea what I am
>talking about.
i didn't think anyone did that. and, if they did, that's pretty normal for this and most lists. i wouldn't take it so personally.
>Unlike some on this list, I generally only try to engage in discussions on
>topics where I have actually done a serious amount of research. OK if you
>disagree with my conclusions,
this is true, i admire you for that. but you know, it sometimes feels as if you only care about the list because you want to hone an axe. indeed, you've made condescending comments about "us" in the past, right?
>but I do get tired of the responses like yours and
>the one by Tanya Ramzotti (and the original response by Charles Jannuzi) that
>essentially say "what the hell are you talking about you ignorant oaf?"
Tanya said that? she didn't say you were ignorant. she objected to your claim that the article endorsed anything in particular other than the fact that you coined a phrase and that kellner agreed. he didn't, however, take up the issue of what fascism is, exactly. wasn't that the debate? i don't see how it addresses the concerns of people who were prodding you about your claims.
>You can try to characterize you last post in some other way, but may I remind
>you of your phrases:
>
> >snip the list of people intended to authorize chip's
> >claims. logical fallacies, you say?
you need to argue for the merit of your concerns on your own. from what i've read, i don't see how any of those authors are concerned about forwards sent to left lists. how do they support your concern about rightwing material sent to lists? i'm not objecting to the general thrust of what's on your site, just to your claims about what takes place here!
i know rupert. i have a feeling that he wouldn't be grinding the axe you grind here on this list about forwards.
> >on the Internet, every man has a 10" rod
> >(and the rest pretend to be women).
i've already explained what that meant: it was a colorful way of saying that your claims about what takes place on list are like positivist content analysis. when people forward things, they may simply be outraged by the content. who knows? they may be rightwingers trying to stir up shit. who knows. they may be too busy and simply assume things.
i understand your concerns. i just don't see the events as a signifier that we're on the road to barbarism.
>It is not a bad debate technique to say others have similar concerns and
>then post the URL where you can go read them.
it's a bad debate technique to trot out a list of people who you say have same concerns about a concrete practice--posting on lists. the articls you have there are about related issues, but they don't justify your concerns about the dynamics of a listserv and what it means for the political climate in the US.
>Now it is bedtime for Bonzo...
>
>-Chip