On 09/12/2004, at 2:37 PM, JDG wrote:
or at least the message was claimed to be written by a JDG. From the contents, it looks suspiciously like we may have been infiltrated by a certain Dutchman again..... :-(
Regards, Ray.
PS: In other words John (and others), can we try to avoid this pernickety nit-picking bickering on-list?
PPS: Yes, I know you were just trying to set the record straight....
At 06:51 AM 12/7/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote:Unless of course one is only allowed to post thought-provoking articles
that one agrees with on this List.
As if. This seems to me to be a straw man.
Straw Man? I was accused of the following:
"JDG may want to have both ways: he posts (I read: "endorses") an article that presents evidence that the author believes bodes ill for the Dems, but distances himself from the author's conclusions by calling those conclusions "all too gloomy.""
The clear implication of Dave Land's post was that "want[ing] to have [it]
both ways" was not an admirable quality. I reacted angrily to this,
because the other clear implication of Dave Land's post is that one can
either:
a) only post articles you agree with
b) post articles you disagree with, specifying that you do so, and then be
accused of "wanting to have it both ways."
Dave has since apologized for his statement, for which I thank him, and for
which I also apologize for over-reacting a little bit to his initial
accusation. So, why are you still trying to defend this original statement?
In short, the future of the Democratic Party has been a topic for
discussion on this List. I read this article, and thought that the
author had some interesting points about the subject. I posted this
article to the List for other people's enjoyment, and was careful to
specify that I was not in agreement with everything the author had to say,
and gave some indication of my disagreeements.
Since we are responding to the article, whether or not you agree with is
beside the point.
Well, you have posted in this thread various items that are ambiguous as to
whether or not you are referring to me or the article.
If you're going to call me underhanded for that
Another straw man.
Actually the only straw man is your assertion that either I, or the author
of the article in The Prospect ever stated that "The Democratic Party has
no future."
Oh wait, there were actually at least two straw men in this thread, another
one was:
"This writer seems to be endorsing rejection of the interests of 49
percent of the population."
JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
