It seems to me that the first one to attack ad hominem signals that he/she is not entirely sure of his/her argument.
Having said all that, while I admire brad's sensitivity to the issue, I believe Novus that his derogatory name calling was not intended as racist. Not that he can just say it without launching another offense to those readers who failed to see how wholesome his underlying intentions were. I don't know if -- as my brother thinks -- we are born with an inherent sense of fairness, but it is very clear to me that the basis of any workable civilization (or listserv) has to be treating others the way one wishes to be treated.
I also appreciate Joshua's words, but there's a part of me that tells me that, when people get really passionate about an argument, others pay more attention. If we are not hot, what chance do we have to warm others up to our viewpoint? So that's the value for the list community of a few flames flaring here and there, as long as they don't get out of control. Doug is steady, light-handed, and fair-minded in his moderation style, so there's no concern in my mind that a few flames will burn up the list. Lack of passion could.
I find it ridiculous to reduce Marx's critique of political to the mere validation of the prejudices of the political economists, who understandably held the belief that productive labor was only such labor that directly produced surplus value and thereby capital. Indeed, that belief is inherent to bourgeois political economy -- and Marx certainly cleaned it a bit of consistencies and show how it was fitting to the viewpoint of capital. But Marx's overall project was intended as a *critique* of those very prejudices, a critique grounded on the perspective of working people, not of capital. Go tell working women, who have historically shouldered the tremendously oppressive bulk of domestic labor under capitalism, that childrearing, food preparation at home, etc. are all nonproductive uses of their labor, because Marx wrote (and he did) that, *from the viewpoint of capital*, such labor was not directly productive of surplus value and capital? I'm sure that a few will say that the viewpoint of capital is not their viewpoint.