Corn transcript

[Liza Featherstone]

It's possible that other people may do that, but perhaps naively, I assume,
reading a post, that the person has read the email that they are replying
to, and made some effort to understand it. Not to do so violates the very
spirit and purpose of conversation, obviously.  I would never talk to
someone who admitted that they didn't listen to other people, and were far
more interested in hearing the sound of their own voice -- I don't see why
that should somehow be OK on a maillist.

Liza


> From: Gordon Fitch <gcf at panix.com>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:16:21 -0500
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Corn transcript
> 
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>>> I'm reading fragments again in isolation if that bothers anyone, delete.
> 
> Doug Henwood:
>> If you're going to accuse people of slander, then tell them how to
>> think and act, while announcing that you haven't read what they've
>> said, then you should delete yourself. Why should anyone have expend
>> the energy of hitting the <cmd>-D key combo when you refuse the basic
>> conventions of civilized discourse? And it's not just your cataract
>> surgery problem - you're like this all the time. "Oh I vaguely
>> remember an article I read 30 years ago that proved X a sexist pig."
>> Sometimes you make me laugh, but right now I'm wondering who the fuck
>> you think you are that you can behave like this and expect anyone to
>> listen to you?
> 
> My impression is that it's rather common on lbo-talk, as
> well as in other discursive venues of the same general type,
> to read in a desultory, superficial and fragmentary way and
> yet nevertheless feel fully qualified to post broad, strong,
> and sometimes abusive material supposedly in response.  I
> doubt if I have to name names.  I don't know why Carrol
> should be particularly picked out.
> 
> 
> -- Gordon
>