>>Oh, I see. You're the color commentator right?
>
>It's actually "commentator of color." (I know you can't see me, but I
>don't have European ancestry that I know about.)
it was a reference to a role in sports journalism. the color commentator will often interject information to fill up air space. you'd described yourself as not having much to say on the topic but wanted to interject anyway. sounds like the role of color commentator to me.
>Well, YOU clearly engage in sophistry (with all this amusing "moron"
>business). And since Doug apparently authorizes you to speak for him,
>he also engages in sophistry by extension.
I'm not sure what you mean with this, the "moron business" is sophistry. When colin decides that he needs to educate critics by pointing at the MySQL model for making money, that's treating his interlocutors as clueless morons who know so little about Open Source, they have no idea how some OS projects make money. When I am corrected for using FOSS, when I wasn't the first one to introduce the acronym into this discussion, then it's treating me as the moron who doesn't know the diff. b/t free and open sour software movements.
>But not because of the point I was making with Graeber's quote, which
>is a separate issue.
You'll need to explain this "separate issue". You responded to Doug and then you said, "But then there's this" and quoted Graeber as if to say that the whole conversation was just the antics of skeptics against the ones who have truth on their side.
>You fixated on the term "gift economy," which only appeared in his
You'll note that I used the phrase, "Take for example, the gift economy issue." I could have used the others. The gift economy is the concept that seems to be most familiar to folks as they typically learn it in a college course. By using "take for example" I used it as one of potentially more examples that could have been plucked from his sentence. If the rest of DG's sentence contains examples you are more familiar with, then be my guest and please concretize DG's statements with an explication and defense of your position. I *want* to hear more about your personal experiences with open source production and how you think it's a challenge to capitalist production.
>quote, and I did not discuss.
Yes, thank you for reposting. I'll note that DG uses the insulting phrase "skeptic" which you didn't qualify. Do you really think Henwood is a recalcitrant skeptic who hasn't offered an argument? Do you really think that he is dismissing these examples out of hand, as DG says. If you don't agree with DG, then why introduce the quote with no qualifications as to YOUR opinion? Why try to suggest that critics in this conversation are engaged in trickery, the same old same old trickery that so isn't worth DG's time -- why if you don't actually agree with the author? But if you have such a low opinion of your interlocutors as DG does, then I should think this entire convo is a waste of time.
>If anyone isn't still sickened by your
>histrionics, here it is again for reference:
This is delightful. I always love an addition to my sidebar quotes. However, I need links to where I engaged in historionics. Could you point out which quotes and posts? TIA.
>As for incendiary, that describes you and Doug (again by extension) well.
Currently, my fingers contain the sock puppets for women of color bloggers. Doug's on his own but I'd sure like to know how he's incendiary. Me, well, I light up every room I enter, so no news to me.