Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
I am pretty confident if
> Carrol button-holed somebody who knew nothing about the Middle East or
> U.S. imperialism, but was interested in talking, he would try to
> converse with the person in the same way he would talk to a person who
> knew nothing about Milton but was interested in poetry.
You are correct, and off-and-on for over half a decade I've been trying to point that distinction out to the lunkheads on lists who collapse all rhetorical situations into one. A few years ago some cretin (at least cretin for the moment) on the list asked me if I talked in the same way to students. What tomfoolery.
Even if one is aiming at a united front position, the first necessity is a clear statement (abrasive if necessary) of each of the positions to be united. And the first way spoilers of unity go about blocking formation of such united fronts is by shifting the focus from "what is the case" to "how should the case be presented." It is either ignorant or deliberately divisive to talk about delivery before first agreeing on what is to be delivered. I learned that long before I ever dreamt of becoming a marxist -- in fact when I still enjoyed a top secret security clearance I had already discovered that.
Carrol