I wrote:
>>You should read more carefully. I wasn't saying that you should be filtered,
Saith Brad:
>You need to write more carefully. You were:
>
>>Néstor wrote:
>>>>(The internal structure of Argentina is not the business of interlopers
>>>>from the imperialist world -- and interloping from alleged leftists is
>>>>the worst of all).
>>
>>Brad writes:
>>>Positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso.
In the offending passages, I wrote:
>>Michael, isn't this the kind of abusive rhetoric which gets people
>>expelled from pen-l. (NB: I'm not in favor of expelling anyone. If Brad
>>doesn't clean up his act, I encourage everyone to put him on their filter
>>lists.)
Brad now says:
>It is *nutso*. I'm calling it like I see it.
>
>So filter away...
Gee, did you miss the clause about "if Brad doesn't clean up his act"? By
usual interpretations of English grammar, this implies that "I wasn't
saying that you [Brad] should be filtered."
It's true that I forgot the question mark at the end of the first sentence,
but otherwise what I wrote was quite clear.
Calling people "nutso" rather than making it clear _why_ Brad disagrees and
how Brad would do better is below the standards of both pen-l and Brad
deLong. I'd much rather see an explanation backing up the allegations of
insanity than name-calling. It's true that Brad had an explanation
earlier, but I didn't find that sufficient, as explained below.
It's flame-bait, as seen by the results of his rhetoric, i.e., the current
thread. (I'm surprised that no-one has chimed in to say that it's okay to
be "nutso," BTW.)
On the insufficiency of Brad's earlier explanation: What I object to in his
missives is first his _moralism_. Here he is, a former official of the most
powerful (and perhaps the richest) country in the world preaching morality
to a resident of a relatively poor country that's generally under the thumb
of the US, without paying attention to the fact that the US doesn't live up
to those standards, while ignoring the various factual points made by pen-l
people. (I'm all in favor of morality, of course, but what distinguishes it
from moralism is that the latter ignores the social and economic and
natural constraints that prevent people from living up to moral ideals.)
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there's the application of the
_double standard_. Brad denounces the Argentine Junta for its crimes, but
not the US for its care and feeding of that Junta. He denounces Argentine
nationalism, but not the US nationalism that masquerades as internationalism.
Brad, 'tis a pity that you didn't want to read or respond to the rest of my
message. I guess it saves on time...
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
