Robert Naiman wrote: > I think this is an example of the double standard. You're indulgent > towards the ultraleft.
You say that _I_ am "indulgent toward the (dreaded) ultraleft" rather than saying that _what I posted_ was "indulgent toward the ultraleft." Why make things personal? Why not be substantive in your criticism? Anyway, is Patrick really "ultraleft"? What in heck does that mean? (Does "ultraleft" mean that one strongly rejects Obama or the Democratic Party from the left?) Does being "ultraleft" mean that one's opinions should be dismissed automatically? Where's my double standard? Did Patrick launch personal insults at Robin in the article that started this thread? Did he call him names such as "petty-bourgeois running dog" (or, rather, something that an alleged "Trotskyist" might call someone perceived to be on the right)? My impression is that Patrick's article was substantive, dealing with issues of fact and logic, instead of calling anyone names. On the other hand, you called him a "Trotskyist," which I assume is a bad thing. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
