ravi wrote:
I am not so sure... given that arguments are as much a matter of appeal to various biases (perception, ideology), personality and stylistic elements (and so on), as logic, empirical reality etc, a good (i.e., fair) set of ground rules would impose different standards on feuding sides based on which one of them enjoys the benefits of the above [LHS] factors. Given that PEN-L constitutes the purist left (IMHO), I believe Julio's opinion (and robust defence, often running to multiple virtual pages, of guarded optimism w.r.t Obama) deserves a lot of leeway, lest we lose content in pursuit of form. Whether such leeway applies to responses such as "blah, blah" I will leave for MP to decide.
Since I was the target of Julio's rather flaccid attack, let me the first to say that I didn't mind it at all. I only wish that Michael Perelman would some day use a bit of emotion in his own posts, if not some well-placed invective. He is like the Mr. Peepers of Marxism.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
