I dunno. I got it. I thought the substitution made a point. Not everyone will "get" everything. So what?
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:04 PM > To: Progressive Economics; Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] We're Still Arming the King of Syria? There Oughta Be > aLaw! > > It was a rhetorical device, designed to skirt the fact that in US > political discourse, it has been established as a rule that we should > care very much about Syria and not at all about Bahrain. > > ------ > > Why would you choose a rhetoric designed to hide from your reader what you > were talking about? Even after your explanation I still don't know how your > apparent point attaches to the mere boring facts. And yesterday I had > stopped reading the thread simply because nothing quite made sense. Do not > assume extensive knowledge of daily news by your readers. > > More generally, irony is a bad choice for left rhetoric. It works much > better for conservatives such as Plato. > > Carrol > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
