> I should have added that without formal organization as context what you
> have (legitimately) are polemics -- looking forward to some sort of
> organization. Judge those "denunciations" by whatever principles you
> bring to the judgment of polemics. Criticism has to proceed in terms of
> mutually agreed principles. Abstractly, so do useful polemics but much
> more general, looser. I never read mpug (or most responses to him)
> because he is simply in another world of discourse; no shared principles
> whatever in terms of which we could debate each other. (Obviously we
> have a continuum here rather than sharp & impermeable boundaries, but my
> elbow hurts too much to explore further.
You seem to be fully capable of posting your critical thoughts in the context of this formal list. Michael has a slightly different kind of communication style. What you want to see is a list where everybody exchanges criticism in some kind of highly-organized, legalistic manner.
This is the real world, with humans in their variety, so the utopia you seek is not going to happen here.
Chuck