[lbo-talk] Re: Is Berlet Combat Ready?

[martin]

I think that opaqueness is a fine art within this domain. And no, I 
don't work at it. It just seems that sometimes I can say a couple of 
different things with one grammatical construction and it amuses me. In 
this instance I referred to your 'paranoid conspiracists' as skeptics 
and you had placed them on the 'right'. Giving the equivalency with 
'true believer' to the left was a little dig at your assigning sides.

I noticed later that you too used skeptic in your reply to JW and 
assigned it to the other 'side' - the conspiracy skeptics.

But to be more clear, I don't see much distinction between saying that 
paranoid conspiracists belong on the 'right' and suggesting that 
someone is an agent-provacateur - a practice that I thought you 
discouraged on the list. And the thing about whose 'side' someone is on 
has bothered me. Sides imply division that we don't need. (Re Carrols 
recent reply on this topic)

On the other hand I like that you police this list where you see the 
necessity.

Martin

On Jun 19, 2004, at 4:07 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:


>
>> Skeptics on the right, true believers on the left, please.
>>
>> Martin (who likes suspicion better than 'sides')
>
> I swear, you never make any sense. Do you try to be opaque, or does it 
> just come naturally?