>snit snat wrote:
> >
> >
> > donkey dung. we don't understand provacateurs. thus, putting them in the
> > same textual space as .....n, ..g, etc. isn't about understanding
>
>Kelley, how much prior agreement do you need with others for it to be
>worthwhile to engage in debate with them?
if you didn't mean to portray dawson as deserving of sharing space with your list that included provacteurs and the weatherman, then say so. it's as simple as that. given your history of trying to get pug expelled from another list (chomsky-l) and given your insistence that he be shunned and filtered, frequently expressed here, I'm bound to interpret your comments in the context of your past behaviors and commentary.
if you don't like people attributing motives to your expression here, then you kinda need to be able to erase our memories everyday.
if you've changed the way you think about pugliese, dawson, newman, etc., that's terrific.
i saw nothing constructive in what you as a reply to me. it didn't address a thing _I_ said and simply used my post to launch a lecture. if you'd like to correct me on that by clarifying, do so. so far, you've not responded. next time you want to lecture, you can do yourself a favor by not responding to a particular person -- if you're just lecturing at everyone else. if you want to lecture at me, great. just don't be surprised if 1. i don't give a crap if i think you're on a high horse or 2. i argue with you if i think you're full of horse puckey.
as for your question, above, i have no clue what you're getting at. i can safely say that people, including me, engage in debate here ALL the time and it's not (gasp!) motivated by any interested in changing their interlocutors' mind. what else is third person interrogative for, eh? :))))))
k
"We live under the Confederacy. We're a podunk bunch of swaggering pious hicks."
--Bruce Sterling