Oh no, not at all. I did read/perceive your post in that light. The length of my response was also to sneak in some additional thoughts!
—ravi
>
> Carrol
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of // ravi
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 3:06 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] ISO?
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>> You confuse "the left" with maillists. In most discourse among leftists
> you
>> do not have a cascade of one or two sentences of metaphoric profundity,
> nor
>> do you have people posing questions then leaning back smugly refusing to
>> answer their own questions. The snarkiness you observe is with rare
>> exceptions grounded in this sort of (non)communication.
>>
>
> Okay, I agree that's true. In which case, it's troubling to consider that
> such mailing lists might actually be a net negative.
>
>
>> And having said that, I took a second look at your post & now note that
> you
>> yourself have engaged in the snarkinesds you bewail. What is _your_
> opinion_
>> this question you raise? :-)
>
>
> Do you mean on this thread? None of my questions on this thread (Subject:
> ISO) or the black bloc action thread were intended as snark.
>
> On the issue of internal animus (of the shallow, not principled, variety),
> that LT wrote about, I have no answer. I see it happen. I see what seem to
> be straightforward issues deteriorate within a response or two to baiting,
> motive mongering and such. Sometimes I think, well, perhaps that's just the
> more robust style of US interaction - list members can trash talk on list
> but will hug it out in person :-). Other times, I am not so sure.
>
> On the matter of the black bloc action, I must confess that the same
> questions as occur to Doug arise in my mind as well: what is the value of
> such action? I am (perhaps unlike Doug and SA) willing to accept an answer
> that this question itself is valueless.
>
> Some people have equated the criticism of the "violence" to a defence of
> Whole Foods or capitalists - or various similar claims, which seems flawed
> to me (hence my questions to Bhaskar). Others have bemoaned the attitudes of
> those questioning the violence - the sort of non-argument (characterising
> the opponent) that I have always found fruitless. Perhaps they were pushed
> to do so by the the "robustly" passionate analysis of Max, Gar, others?
>
> I have started and abandoned at least four responses on this thread in the
> last two days, since I am afraid I will only muddy things further. In the
> midst of this there has been good material as well. like large parts of
> Gar's and Max's posts, your point - a mere footnote! - about violence
> ("violence is not a principle of any kind"), etc.
>
> -ravi
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk