Meanwhile, if you seriously think Lance, with whom most of us almost certainly disagree, is literally making up lies, rather than stating his genuine opinion, then I would suggest it's you who are the rigid unthinker. Why would Lance literally lie about this topic in this forum? What would that gain him? He may be profoundly wrong and completely uninformed (personally I think he's got at least a grain of truth going here -- I've been an AFLack state officer and watched for 4 years as organizing operated as a footnote to "PAC" bullshit), but that's not necessarily the same thing as being a knowing liar.
And, again, even knowing liars have the absolute right to lie, except in certain rare circumstances not applicable to chat lists like this one.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:52 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
>
>
> -If you don't believe in free speech for your enemies, you don't believe
> in
> -the freedom of speech.
> -And it's legit to criticize SEIU, even though it's critical of the
> AFLack.
> -I know this jars your sensibilities, and it may indeed be misinformed and
> -wrong, but Lacny's the problem in this one, not Lance.
>
> Michael, you are completely deaf or just so blindly ideological that it's
> pretty useless to say anything.
>
> Of course it's okay to criticize anyone. It's not okay to make up lies as
> part of the criticism.
>
> Those are two different things. The fact that you can't tell the
> difference between them explains most of what's wrong with almost
> everything you say. There are folks on this list like Yoshie who I
> disagree with on most things, but they have the basic intelligence to
> recognize the difference between opinion and fact. You don't have that
> capability.
>
> Nathan Newman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:24 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
>
>
> -It's called free speech, Nate. And, anyway, it is certainly within the
> -bounds of reason to criticize the AFL-CIO for insufficient organizing.
> -You might want to rethink your own particular theory of truth. If I
> recall,
> -you are the one who thinks everything's on the right path. Not quite,
> eh?
>
> Michael-- the issue is not criticism of the AFL-CIO, a bizarre claim since
> we are talking about SEIU's criticisms of the AFL-CIO. The issue is
> factual inaccuracies about whether Local 1199 in NY is a separate local
> from other locals with 1199 in their names.
>
> The idea that lies and falsehood is a form of free speech is just the Fox
> News version of truth. Hey, huge percentages of the population think
> Saddam Hussein was involved in planning 911. So if Fox repeats that idea
> as fact, they're just engaging in free speech, which is fine and dandy?
>
> Unfortunately, there are far too many LBOers who think making up facts is
> a
> form of ideological argument, and they really don't seem to be able to
> tell
> the difference between stating an opinion and making things up.
>
> Nathan Newman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:36 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>
> John Lacny wrote:
> >Christ, can you READ?
>
> -Why do you have to be so damned nasty? We know how you feel about this.
>
> Doug, your worry about ettiquette is reasonable, but you should be more
> bothered that folks like Lance are spouting completely untrue statements
> and then spouting opinions based on those fake facts. Do we really have
> to
> speak nicely to the leftwing equivalent of FoxNews? Is everyone entitled
> not just to respect for their own opinions but to their own false facts?
>
> I think you should demand not just etiquette from folks but a reasonable
> basis of knowledge before people claim things are true that are just not.
> Everyone screws up on a fact occasionally, but when the fact asserted-- as
> in Lance's contention that all the SEIU locals are a single centralized
> local -- is the main point being made, and it's reasserted even after
> being
> corrected, there is some right to frustration.
>
> Repeating a lie over and over again does not deserve respect or even
> politeness after a while.
>
> So if you are going to rap peoples knuckles for impoliteness, how about a
> bit of discipline on those who spread clearly false information?
>
> Nathan Newman
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk