>I'm reading fragments again in isolation if that bothers anyone, >delete.
>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?
God, Doug, it's just a mail-list. Carrol doesn't have a gun to your head, demanding obediance to whatever he says. You don't even have to expend energy: just ignore whatever you think is bullshit and move on. "Basic conventions"? I think Carrol's been very civil: he's honest about not knowing something for certain and says so, he indicates when he thinks he might be wrong, he alerts others that he hasn't "prepared" by reading their letters in-depth and so is probably wrong in his response. But he contributes something, even if it's not much. As for proof, I wait to see what he's mentioned. If it doesn't appear, I remember that too. As to who he is: Carrol's a guy who has opinions, same as anyone else. As to whether his opinions are WORTH the same as anybody else's, that's another matter. It's a mail-list and he contributes. If he really bothers you so much, boot him off YOUR mail-list, or do you just like to have a convenient dog to kick?
>Doug
>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.
Yes.
>- -- Gordon
>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.
So, hasn't Carrol done this, made an effort at understanding? My own reading of his replies to people has also been sporadic, but he seems to reply to them about as well as most people do here. I'm not going to go back and read his most recent posts and the letters he replied to: I don't have that kind of time. I rely on what others say and my own, imperfect, memory. If I get something wrong, I expect to be politely reminded or corrected or plain ignored, not excoriated for "holding forth" on some unknown subject.
On a mail-list, you don't have a clue what the other person's doing while s/he's reading your letters. S/he might not be interested in what you have to say so just skims it briefly then ignores it. Maybe there's a tiny nugget that person wants to comment on, so s/he replies to that instead. Do you listen to and take seriously every last word that gets said on LBOT? And who here has actually said that: I don't listen to whatever you have to say? So what? Then just ignore that person. It's not that it's OK, it's that it's not a problem. At least, I don't see it as one.
>Liza
>Carrol Cox wrote:
>I know little about the case
>...but that won't stop you from holding forth, right?
Wow! That little crack reminded me so much of a scene from "Manufacturing of Consent" (I think). Chomsky, in his thirties I believe, is on TV, debating with William F. Buckley Jr. (I think; some sleek asshole). Buckley tries to poison the debate by mentioning that Chomsky's a linguist, not a political scientist or an economist, implying that he has no business commenting on something he knows nothing about. Bullshit. Same goes here. Carrol clearly states what he knows, alerting people to take that into account. If they don't think he can make a relevant contribution, they can stop reading right there and ignore him. But you just have to whack him again, don't you, Doug.
>Doug
Note this:
>I didn't follow the case in detail. so you know more
>about it than I do.
That's Justin's remark. Yet he still "held forth" on the subject, to a better degree than a non-lawyer, but he still gave his opinion, telling others it's only his opinion, and letting them decide to believe it or not.
And you didn't attack him.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail