andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> I do not find your views on the
> presumption of innocence, insofar as I understand
> them, plausible or enlightening, and I do not find
> discussion on the subject with you worthwhile. Please
> do not raise the subject to me anymore. I will not
> discuss it with you.
An excellent example of a point that for some reason many on this list won't accept or can't understand -- that it is impossible to hold conversation with _everyone_; that conversation _always_ depends on some kind of limitation of those included in it. Usually when one tries to make this point it gets caricatured as not wanting to talk to anyone outside of some metaphysical small (infintesimally small), and they haul out all that stale bourgeois jargon about "purism" and "lack of a sense of humor," and "dogmatism." (These terms are jargon and not part of the general language in this context because they substitute for thought rather than name a topic for thinking. Moreover, they are the vocabulary of a coterie though a large one, a coterie of "left red baiters," whose language makes no sense to those outside the coterie.)
In reference to your specific interlocutor here, I have never met anyone, personally or in cyberspace, with whom I shared so many ideas _witout_ being able to carry on a conversation with him. He can take fundamental ideas of the left and so twist them around that they simply can't be discussed. I don't understand quite why it is.
Carrol
>
> jks
>
> --- billbartlett at dodo.com.au wrote:
> > At 3:20 PM -0800 2/12/02, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>