hostile specifically to linux.com in general.
><snip>
>
>> >But anarchists warn about this ancient line of discussion. David Graeber
>> >writes:
>>
>>I was in an FM dead zone the other day so I tuned into AM radio. Some
>>preacher says, "But Christians know that the arguments of the secular
>>humanists are based on that ancient line of discussion...."
>
>Did this preacher happen to be right? Don't lefists too dissect and
>illustrate (what they consider) faulty premises of a statement which
>they frequently encounter?
Oh, I see. You're the color commentator right?
><...>
>I don't think you are a moron; it's generally obvious to me that
>everyone here, certainly including you, know a lot more than I do
>about a great many subjects.
linux moron should have been the expression.
>>My arguments are intended (and conceitedly so) to get you guys to actually
>>make an argument that addresses the criticisms. Doug isn't some idiotic nay
>>sayer.
>
>I happily recommend Doug's work to others. His book on the new economy
>was very useful to me. And he, as well as others, offered very helpful
>answers to a recent question of mine.
the why quote Graeber, unqualified by your own comments as to what YOU believe when G's comments make Doug and anyone who objects out to be a moron? Graeber paints critics as kool aid drinkers, yes? He's saying that they engage in sophistry, yes?
Yes.
Fuck Graeber.
>Just because I quote Graber, it doesn't mean I happen to agree with
>every idea which appears in the quote. (I also quote Bill Gates and
>others.) The "gift economy" is not my interest; it's his. I will not
>defend this opinion of his, but I think it's evidence that some
>anarchists do consider these to be useful case studies.
Advice: make some qualifications when you post the material. it's kind of silly to dump an incendiary quote into the middle of the conversation and assumed to be someone engaged in constructive discussion.
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org