Bullet Trains and Genuwhine swine

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Sat Mar 23 07:48:15 PST 2002


sui.generis at myrealbox.com wrote:
> At 11:06 PM 3/21/02 -0500, ravi wrote:
>
>> someone somewhere in that thread must've said something like that... why
>> else would i say it? ;-)
>
> was seriously asking. i didn't read the rest of the post! i hadn't seen
> the phrase used, but i don't read all the posts! i thought you coined it
> and I wanted to know what you meant.
>

i probably did coin it, and i wasnt really meaning anything - "genuine folks" sounded the opposite of the flaky lifestyle left... here's a bit from the "popup" quotes on the web page i put up:

------------ Ronald Reagan, of course, doesn't need to affect the establishment style, sensing accurately that his lowbrow, God-fearing, intellect-distrusting constituency regards it as an affront (which, of course, to them it is). Reagan's style can be designated Los Angeles (or even Orange) County Wasp-Chutzpah. It registers the sense that if you stubbornly believe you're as good as educated and civilized people -- i.e., those Eastern dudes -- then you are. The acute student of men's class signals could virtually infer Reagan's politics of Midwestern small-town meanness from his getups. (pp61-62). -------------

that reminded me of the whole thread...


> i like genuwhine better then
> genyouwin. and how can you say genuwhine without following it with
> swine? it's just not possible.

whatever it is you are smoking, you need to pass it around! ;-)


> i did got to the site and used another browser as I rilly rilly hate
> netscape 6.0 seemed to work for me. cool color combo. i mean, i wouldn't
> recommend it for everything, but i liked it.

thanks!


> i note that i've still not rec'd an adequate answer to my query: what
> makes anyone think that anyone was demanding anything be done to the
> archives or that anyone was angry. i'd like to know so that i can alter
> my posts accordingly!

my guess would be that there were two issues here: the pragmatic issue of ensuring some level of list privacy: those techies arguing about whose responsiblity it is, and how it can or cannot be done, miss the point entirely. it helps to help non-technical folks and not demand that they pass through some test of fire to be able to post. as budge pointed out, no complete solution is needed. this is supposed to be a left forum, isnt it? we are supposed to be kind, no? especially to the less fortunate (in this case those not fortunate enough to have gone to college and learnt all the cool geek tricks of anonymity)?

the second issue is the larger philosophical debate about bourgeois ownership, and so on...

my half-witted suggestion: if you want to achieve the pragmatic, separate the philosophical issues from it! at least wait till you get the changes in, then start the flame war ;-).

--ravi



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list