"Politicus E." wrote:
>
> Let me be clear by expressing my non-neutrality on the issue. I completely
> condemn, in no uncertain terms, such social movements, both real and
> hypothetical. In passing, being an avid reader of the Southern Poverty Law
> Center's Intelligence Report leaves me not optimistic on this score.
>
> > "Vicious" here is a purely neutral adjective and is not meant to imply
> any moral disapproval of such a hypothetical social movement.
Is there some asshole on the list still under the idiotic impression that the only basis for condemnatio is moral? My mail program lost some posts, including apparently the one quoted here. As I use it anyhow "vicious" is (a) NOT a moral judgment and (b)wholly and emphatically a condemnation. It is possible of course to disagree strongly with that, but to call it a contradiction is evidence of intellectual poverty.
Carrol