--- 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. 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. 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. 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). And you think _I'm_ questioning people's patriotism? That's bullshit. 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 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. 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. > 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. For a lot of people their particular objection to neocons is that they're Jewish. I somehow doubt that's your problem with them. 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. > 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
