OK Kelley, explain to me the point of having a serious discussion with someone who claims the terms you use have no meaning, refuses to allow you to define the terms, or consider other definitions, and then provides a tiny snippet of a quote and challenges you to rise above your "sophomoric" level and state categorically (in 400 words or less) whether or not the person being quoted is representative of the term. Its absurd and insulting. It is not a serious discussion. And in both cases, nonetheless, I attempted to give an answer. (Actually my two posts in response to Charles appeared on the list in reverse order due to technical weirdness).
I started to include more text in my posts because of previous criticisms which had a point, but I am on other discussion lists where it is actually considered thoughtful to provide reading lists, cites, and URL links. In the past few weeks I have had dozens of people send me e-mail to thank me for posting reading lists, cites, and URL links to help make sense of 911. This has even happened on this list. But for some reason on this list, some people think it is a form of snobbery to actually cite sources, define terms, or mention recent research.
PRA, where I work, is a research think tank. What do you expect my discourse to look like? We churn out material in print and on the web with reading lists, cites, and URL links. Our magazine The Public Eye has footnotes. Many of the people we work with are local activists. They like to be able to check back to our cites to see if they agree with our interpretation, or to do more homework and dig more deeply into the subject. Citing sources saves them time and allows them to access resources more efficiently. It's what I do.
What is insulting about quoting people who have spent decades developing theories and descriptions of what they have studied? Why is anti-intellectualism considered courtesy?
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Kelley
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 10:14 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com; lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Clerical Fascism & Totalitarianism
>
>
> At 09:53 AM 10/17/01 -0400, Chip Berlet wrote:
> >Hi Charles,
> >
> >Good morning to you, too.
> >
> >Imagine my amazement when you claim these lines by you were
> not meant to be
> >insulting:
>
> you shouldn't be surprised that people insult you. you insult
> people by
> quoting books at them and by giving them reading lists and
> telling them to
> visit your web site. it's a simple fact of social interaction
> that treating
> your equals as ignorant will probably not earn you any
> friends. charles
> turned the tables and treated YOU as the student in need of a
> critique of
> your method of argument.
>
>
> kelley
>
>