Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> The first two sentences above really set me off. And >> I can only hope >> that you can understand why. > > Actually, after everything I've heard on this list, I > have no sympathy whatsoever, Rob, and I really don't > appreciate having you compare me to racists. You want > a fighting mood? You'll get one and more fast if you > ever, ever, ever think you can get away with doing > that again.
Gautam, I think this is where you are having some trouble. (And not just with me) I did not compare you to racists. No sir.......not at all!! I said that what you *said* reminds me of what racists /and/ certain flag draped/waving A-holes have said(most of the time they are the same person), both to me and in front of me. So when you said "I am on America's Side", the obvious implication is that you think that someone else is *not* on Americas side. Maybe it is a character flaw on my part, but that kind of talk makes me unreasonably angry at the best of times, and I will focus on the offending remarks to the exclusion of any redeeming qualification that may be present. For that, I will apologise, even though I believe I am correct in being offended by such (Speaking generally here), but not in my reaction or how I express my outrage. > > In this case, of course, I was pointing out whose side > I am on. I'm not on President Bush's side. I'm not > on Senator Kerry's side. I'm just on America's side. > Brin has very loudly proclaimed that we're on opposite > sides. Well, okay. I know whose side I'm on, though. I understand what you are trying to say, but from where I sit, You and Brin are both on the same side. It is a matter of loyal opposition. Maybe I'm crazy but I really do believe in inclusiveness. > He uses abusive language and arm-waving to cover the > fact that every time someone challenges him, they > demonstrate that he traffics in inaccuracies, > conspiracy theories, and paranoia. I think one has to account for the presuppositions (is that even a real word?) held by a person one is discussing an issue with. Some of what Brin says comes across as reasonable to me, but I hold a different set of assumptions at the onset than you or (Frex) Dan. The only way to have a meaningful debate is to agree on the terms and definitions at the beginning of the discussion. But what I think is happening here is that every person is starting with a different set and "assuming" that others are working from the same toolkit, but I think we have some metric/imperial mixtures confusing the issues discussed. > But if we're on > opposite sides (as he said - not me.) I've never > claimed to be on the opposite side from him, not once. > So in our particular dyad, only one has accused the > other of cowardice (him). Only one has insulted the > other's intelligence (him). And only one has > proclaimed that people who disagree with him are > bribed or blackmailed by foreign powers (him). Only > one has ranted about NASCAR and the Confederacy (him). "Gary, the problem with you is you're a hack. " "I will continue this discussion if it seems you're interested in discussing, not lecturing from a position of Olympian ignorance." "Bob, get one of your surgeon friends to remove the stick from your ass, okay? Maybe your head along with it?" "You know, Erik, if you didn't keep reminding us we might forget what a jackass you are." There is no monopoly for insulting tone on Brin-L. <G> > And you think _I'm_ questioning people's patriotism? > That's bullshit. It may not be your intent, but the language you use sure leads me to think so. But like I've said, I'se seen very similar language where that was implicitly (even explicitly<G>) the intent of the speaker. IMO even a hint in that direction should be avoided if it is in any way possible. > Like I said, it's just gaming the > refs, trying to intimidate people into shutting up for > fear that they'll be accused. If you accuse the other > guy of being unfair loudly enough and often enough, > people might not notice what's actually going on, I > guess. I'd agree that some do that and it often works, but honestly, I'm not interested in that kind of discussion. I see it often enough on USENET and it lowers my opinion of the speaker. > >> I want everyone to know that *that* is unfair to >> Gautam. But I think >> too that there has been a whole hell of a lot of >> this circulating >> onlist lately and I ascribe it to some willfull >> misunderstanding of >> the words of others.........me included. > > Well, fine, now that you've said it you take it back. > I accept that. But if you really want to take the > stand of someone trying to make peace, it would help > if every once in a while you looked at the discussion > and said, hmm, maybe I could criticize both sides once > in a while. My very first post in that regard *was* aimed at both parties. Neither party responded. In fact it evoked no comment at all from anyone. > I'm not even asking that you be > evenhanded. I'm just saying that every once in a > while it might be nice to see our most prominent > member reigned in by someone other than me when he > decides to abuse people. I don't feel that to be an unreasonable request, but I think it should be noted that the reigning in only occurs after the argument gets hot enough for abuse. Not trying to be a jerk here, but since you are one of the mutual antagonists, you are not really in a position to be *able* to reign "the other party" in. In that case you can reign in the entire argument or yourself, I think. But any mediation or moderation needs to come from some (and somehow) impartial party. Considering that you often say that the list as a whole is decidedly left-leaning, I don't know that in the heat of the moment that you would see anyone (cepting maybe Dan) as being impartial. And perhaps they are not. It makes for a potentially difficult situation, one that most would be hesitant to enter. Heh<G> Maybe I'm just stupid, I seem to be the only person who has tried in any direct manner.<G>( I'm absolutely impressed by Dan's more subtle methods) > >> Some of his crew are people I just dislike because >> of their politics. >> (Neocons) > > Just out of curiosity, which part of being a neocon > don't you like? Is it the part about believing in > spreading democracy around the world? Because that > is, in fact, the only major difference between neocons > and traditional conservatives. >From what I am seeing, the Neocon powerplayers embody this concept where they decide they want to do something, roll all over any opposition, are willing to use any sophistry or even lie to convince people of their righteousness, and if plans go south use any sophistry or even lie to isolate themselves from blame. After a quite brilliant persecution of the war in Iraq, the execution of the aftermath has been particularly boneheaded, in the main because they have isolated so many useful people. There seems to be a mindset that loyalty to the core Neocon group supersedes loyalty to America or even to the Republican party, and anyone who pushes for what they think is a better method is shunted to the side and kept out of the loop. This appears to me to be what happened to Powell and IMO was their biggest mistake. I also think that Powell would have done better to have checked which way the wind was blowing and shucked the Administration since it didn't seem like they particularly cared what Powell thought and were just using him for his reputation as a means to maintain some good PR. If you think the administration has taken some heat, can you imagine how things would have went without Powells presence? You said a while back: " I do have some criticisms of the neo-cons - having switched from the Left to the Right their policy positions have improved but they still betray quite a few hints of their old truly astonishingly bad ideas." Care to elaborate? > For a lot of people > their particular objection to neocons is that they're > Jewish. I somehow doubt that's your problem with > them. <G> No.....that is pretty far from being a concern I would harbor. But I dispute describing Neocons as an all Jewish choir. John calls himself a Neocon, as do a lot of other non_Jewish people I see. Why do you even bother with that particular definition? > But other than Brin's fevered and ignorant > rants, what do you know about neocons that makes you > object to them? For that matter, why do you think > they have much power? The most important neocon in > the government is the Deputy Secretary of Defense. > Can you even name a single Clinton-era Deputy SecDef? > Can you name a _single_ DepSecDef other than > Wolfowitz? I can't. If Paul Wolfowitz's name was > Paul Smith, I doubt anyone would know who he is. Oh I doubt that Gautam. That New American Century stuff made a pretty powerful splash and the ripples are still being seen. I type reeeeeeeal slow. And I'm stopping to give everything you say and I want to say a whole heaping lot of consideration. I have a lot of respect for you and I want to give a response that is worth the time it takes to read it. I'll respond to what is below on the morrow. How about those SOX!!!!!!! xponent Thinking About Ethics Maru rob > >> But what does it matter to you what I think about >> such things? >> Does that prevent us from being friends? >> I'd like to think not. >> I'd like to think that we could vehemently disagree >> about certain >> political realities and other political beliefs, and >> then have a good >> time drinking some brews and watching the Sox whup >> up on the Cards >> with any acrimony set aside for the next political >> round or even >> disposed of altogether. > > I would hope so, but I don't know anymore. I have > posted on more than one occasion on this list on the > importance of not taking politics personally. I don't > appreciate being insulted by Dr. Brin, but I don't > take him seriously any more, and I'm not likely to be > very offended by someone I don't respect. I do _not_ > like having other people whom I do respect pile on > behind the disguise of some sort of even-handedness. > I would hope that we could sit around and talk about > the Sox. I don't know that anymore, though, because > that would have involved different actions in the > past. Remember what I said when Brin was going after > John - that friends stick up for each other? Well, > piling on when Brin is on one of his idiot temper > tantrums, instead of (at least) sitting out or > (better) acting like a restraining influence, that > would have been the action of a friend. This was just > a cheap shot, misconstruing a pretty clear statement > on my part in order to make that old claim about > patriotism. So how am I supposed to interpret that? > I don't think that was a friendly act at all. Your > explanation in the post I'm replying to helped a bit, > I guess, but it seems to me that the very bare minimum > that I'm suggesting isn't much to ask for. > > ===== > Gautam Mukunda > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Freedom is not free" > http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
