I don't know if the anti-warriors were grossly unfair to Nathan or not; it's hard for me to judge, being too close to the issue to have perspective. But I know that when I criticize anyone's opinions, I try to criticize them idea by idea, attacking the words, not the person. On the other hand, I sometimes criticize general opinions -- such as jingoism -- giving anyone who has vaguely jingoistic opinions to decide for whether they fit in that rubric. I never said Nathan was a jingoist, for example. In argument, I prefer the style where you attack from only three sides, so that the "opponent" can retreat (a strategy recommended somewhere in the Old Testament but eschewed by NATO/US). If someone says "I'm no jingo," I might say "well, your ideas share some characteristics with those of jingoes" rather than "yes you are." But Nathan didn't respond to my point-by-point criticism of his opinions. Rather he responded to my broad criticism of jingoism -- and later of DSA -- by taking it personally. I can only speculate why he did so. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia!
