Mark Jones wrote:
> Carrol, this is getting to be coquetry. If you are unable to hold a conversation, I
> hope it doesn't mean we have to have endless meta-conversations about the reasons
> why. And you cannot coat-trail like this:
My hope was this leads to a more balanced conversation.
The last time around Tom & others set one (sometimes
stupid) question after another for "marxists" to answer --
it made one feel as though one were taking a placement
examination.
I want him to answer some questions. Then we will see.
And the post did constitute a set of questions. The
propositions I challenged seem utterly incoherent
and unintelligible to me. We need some more
clarity (expressed at least to begin with at somewhat
shorter length than a ph.d. dissertation).
One reads about 35% slower on screen than when
reading printed text. Posts about 4 screens max
long are reasonable. Longer, they have to be good
enough to print out.
We don't have to solve all the world's problems on
this list in one week. I'm in effect pushing for a
slowdown -- stretch the conversation out a bit
longer. Pace the posts, keep them focused, and
of reasonable length.
Tom should be aware that his politics in their most
nake form can't generate power -- and all the bright
ideas in the world, unless they seize the masses,
don't constitute power. That was the point behind
my added note re convincing people.
I've been going over in my head possible follow-ups
to that post, but I want a conversation, not an exchange
of dissertations.
Carrol
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
