--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I keep thinking there ought to be ones that read My
kid is on academic
probation at School X or My kid is on permanent
detention at School X . . .
I *have* seen a My kid beat up your honor student!
bumper sticker, at least twice. It's an
At 10:11 AM 8/30/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 09:34 pm, Kevin Tarr wrote:
(I know, English isn't his first language)(And I'm not assuming he is
Democrat, but 41 percent of the other teacher's failed and I'd lay
odds that more
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At one institution where I was filling in for their astronomy prof while he
was on sabbatical, someone had posted an article from some education
newsletter on the bulletin board in the faculty office area in which the
author explained why it was inconceivable that one
At 09:21 PM 8/30/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At one institution where I was filling in for their astronomy prof while he
was on sabbatical, someone had posted an article from some education
newsletter on the bulletin board in the faculty office area in which the
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:21 PM 8/30/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At one institution where I was filling in for their astronomy prof while he
was on sabbatical, someone had posted an article from some education
newsletter on the bulletin board in the
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:34:45AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
So the parent was putting up the articles 'cause he was proud of his
son, why were you putting the loosing articles up?
Fair and balanced reporting?
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
At 12:49 AM 8/31/2003 -0500, you wrote:
At 09:21 PM 8/30/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At one institution where I was filling in for their astronomy prof
while he
was on sabbatical, someone had posted an article from some education
newsletter on the bulletin board in
Kevin Tarr wrote:
Did anyone write a rebuttal? Was it obvious who posted the article?
Where I have worked, everything had to be pre-approved, with a set
posting date. Even if you were selling a car or announcing a co-worker
having a baby. Where I'm at now, there are no rules. Postings go up
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:34:45AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
So the parent was putting up the articles 'cause he was proud of his
son, why were you putting the loosing articles up?
Fair and balanced reporting?
If there's a limited amount of bulletin board space
At 12:52 PM 8/31/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:34:45AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
So the parent was putting up the articles 'cause he was proud of his
son, why were you putting the loosing articles up?
Fair and balanced reporting?
If there's a
Julia Thompson wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:34:45AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
So the parent was putting up the articles 'cause he was proud of his
son, why were you putting the loosing articles up?
Fair and balanced reporting?
If there's a limited amount of bulletin
At 12:52 PM 8/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:34:45AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
So the parent was putting up the articles 'cause he was proud of his
son, why were you putting the loosing articles up?
Fair and balanced reporting?
If
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 09:34 pm, Kevin Tarr wrote:
At 01:10 PM 8/29/2003 +0100, you wrote:
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:42 am, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Chomsky just speaks to elites - like you. That's
where his power comes from.
I can see we're going to need
William T Goodall wrote:
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 09:34 pm, Kevin Tarr wrote:
(I know, English isn't his first language)(And I'm not assuming he is
Democrat, but 41 percent of the other teacher's failed and I'd lay
odds that more than half of those who failed are.)
Because
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Chomsky just speaks to elites - like you. That's
where his power comes from.
I can see we're going to need a definition of elite before we
continue this discussion. I don't know how I could be considered
elite in any sense of the word.
Doug
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:42 am, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Chomsky just speaks to elites - like you. That's
where his power comes from.
I can see we're going to need a definition of elite before we continue
this discussion. I don't know how I could be considered
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Chomsky just speaks to elites - like you. That's
where his power comes from.
I can see we're going to need a definition of elite before we
continue this discussion. I don't know how I could be considered
elite in any sense of the word.
At 01:10 PM 8/29/2003 +0100, you wrote:
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:42 am, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Chomsky just speaks to elites - like you. That's
where his power comes from.
I can see we're going to need a definition of elite before we continue
this discussion. I
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
No, I think the guy that has an audience of millions
that take him
very seriously and lies about a hell of a lot more
than the poverty
rate in the '50s is far worse than some guy most of
us haven't even
heard of who says
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
They do. One says that Pol Pot was a pretty good guy.
The other was wrong about poverty rates in the 1950s.
Do you really think that they're the same?
No, I think the guy that has an audience of millions that take him
very seriously and lies about a hell of a lot more
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see the difference between not criticizing
Chomsky, and not
criticizing Limbaugh. They both spout a lot of kooky
things. Your
argument about speaking without a script is a
rationalization -- if
Limbaugh cannot avoid ad-libbing all the
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Coffey wrote:
statistics gatheing techniqes vary and therefore are not comparable.
Bullsh*t. Or at least bullsh*t until you provide evidence that the
above is true, or your own statistics that use the same gathering
techniques or that
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:40:27PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Given that the total number of known human¹ deaths due to being struck
by a meteorite stands at zero, of what meaning is the figure they
quote?
A number of cars have been struck by small meteorites over the years,
according to
At 05:15 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Chad Cooper wrote:
-Original Message-
From: David Hobby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 6:57 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price
discrimination
No, David, you proved my much larger
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:28:52PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
If the asterisks are supposed to refer to a footnote, the footnote is
missing.
He did give a URL.
** Standard Population is 2000, all races, both sexes.
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the only people you want carrying guns is criminals? You want
everyone
else, every law abiding citizen to be at the mercy of gun toting
criminals?
I think I'm being baited here, because I don't see any other way what I'm
saying could be so completely
- Original Message -
From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Coffey wrote
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/3/2003 12:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Now, I think both of them are very important figures,
because they are extremely influential. One is the
single most cited living intellectual. The other
edits the
Jan Coffey wrote:
But you made the claim that an armed society is a polite society.
You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies.
Until you do provide data, you're claims are bogus.
Sorry I never made that claim. I did not and do not believe that an armed
society would
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:20 am, Jan Coffey wrote:
The simple truth is that without conceled carry, the only ones with
guns are
the criminals. The power of leathal force is in the hands alone of the
very
people we would
At 03:47 PM 8/5/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 05:15 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Chad Cooper wrote:
Wait a sec...
I see 50% of all automobiles with at least an American Flag decal, and a
fair percentage with an actual flag. Those that use the flag in hate are
such a small
In a message dated 8/10/2003 3:55:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
This very concept is now being chalanged. Not the spoken ability, but the
assumption made by chomsky et. al. that writen ability is
also inate is now
under an increasing amount of attack.
I am no
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:20 am, Jan Coffey wrote:
The simple truth is that without conceled carry, the only ones with
guns are
the criminals. The power of leathal force is in the hands alone of the
very
people we would prefer did not have that power. With conceled carry
there is
a
At 01:20 AM 8/11/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you made the claim that an armed society is a polite society.
You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies.
Sorry I never made that claim. I did not and do not believe that an
statistics gatheing techniqes vary and therefore are not comparable.
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(And, oh yes: Texas does not have less
crime than other states.)
For instance, the murder rate in Texas in 2000 was 5.9
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[someone else wrote:]
How about if we change Jan's statement to
something like:
C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has
not been convicted of a
violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental
or emotional illness]
should [be allowed to choose
So the only people you want carrying guns is criminals? You want everyone
else, every law abiding citizen to be at the mercy of gun toting criminals?
I think I'm being baited here, because I don't see any other way what I'm
saying could be so completely misunderstood. But just in case this
Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Coffey wrote:
statistics gatheing techniqes vary and therefore are not comparable.
Bullsh*t. Or at least bullsh*t until you provide evidence that the
above is true, or your own statistics that use the same gathering
techniques
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(And, oh yes: Texas does not have less
crime than other states.)
For instance, the murder rate in Texas in 2000 was 5.9
http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/stattabs/crimeintexas/00CrimeSection_U.pdf
While the rate in New York for the same year was 5.0
Ray Ludenia wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a
violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness]
should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun.
Can we all agree with that?
Most definitely not!
Jan Coffey wrote:
statistics gatheing techniqes vary and therefore are not comparable.
Bullsh*t. Or at least bullsh*t until you provide evidence that the
above is true, or your own statistics that use the same gathering
techniques or that make the necessary corrections.
And even if gathering
At 11:07 AM 8/11/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Jan Coffey wrote:
The simple truth is that without conceled carry, the only ones with guns are
the criminals.
You see, that's a false statement. Other people, have guns, most of them
aren't packing, but they do have them. And still others are
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 12:43:07PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
half that wide). Similarly, had the man in Spain (sorry, I forgot
his name) lost control of his car and been killed in the wreck, he
could have been counted as a person killed by a meteorite. So with
such a small
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:20 AM 8/11/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you made the claim that an armed society is a polite society.
You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies.
Sorry I
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:brin-l-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug
Pensinger
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 12:40 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price
discrimination
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(And, oh yes: Texas does not have
At 09:01 PM 8/8/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
No. On the flip side, if I'm a law-abiding citizen who knows how to
handle and use a gun, should I be relegated to second-class status
because I choose to own and carry a gun?
From an earlier post of mine:
All that being
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:23:46 EDT
How about if we change Jan's statement to something like:
C) everyone [who wants to own
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
No. On the flip side, if I'm a law-abiding citizen who knows how to
handle and use a gun, should I be relegated to second-class status
because I choose to own and carry a gun?
From an earlier post of mine:
All that being said, there are too much a cult of arms in this
How about if we change Jan's statement to something like:
C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a
violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness]
should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun.
Can we all agree with that?
No. I would
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a
violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness]
should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun.
Can we all agree with that?
Most definitely not! Anyone who wants to own a
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/3/2003 12:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, I think both of them are very important figures,
because they are extremely influential. One is the
single most cited living intellectual. The other
edits the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:29 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price
discrimination
snipsnip
I'm in complete agreement
In a message dated 8/3/2003 12:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Now, I think both of them are very important figures,
because they are extremely influential. One is the
single most cited living intellectual. The other
edits the most important magazine of th Left.
At 10:57 PM 8/10/03 +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a
violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness]
should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun.
Can we all agree with that?
Most
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about if we change Jan's statement to something like:
C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a
violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness]
should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun.
Can we
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:03:03AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
I'm in complete agreement with this.
Me too. I first heard the idea of licensing guns similar to cars from a
post by David Brin here. Sounds like a good system to me.
Since someone had mentioned this, I thought I'd post it.
At 05:57 PM 8/8/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:40:27PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Given that the total number of known human¹ deaths due to being struck
by a meteorite stands at zero, of what meaning is the figure they
quote?
A number of cars have been struck by
At 12:28 PM 8/8/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
Note that deaths are usually quoted as a number per 100,000 people,
which is the case above. For comparison, below I've listed some other
death rates (mostly from NSC's web page). Note that the rate for deaths
from falls is 20 times that quoted above
Will give US accidental gun death statistics for years through 2000.
For 2000
Number of Deaths 776
Population 275,264,999
Crude Rate 0.28
Age-Adjusted Rate** 0.28
Note that deaths are usually quoted as a number per 100,000 people,
which is the case above. For comparison,
Guatam wrote:
I don't doubt that Limbaugh makes mistakes. He speaks
for, what, 2 hours a day, five days a week, 40+ weeks
a year, without a script? _Of course_ he makes
mistakes. I have a memory for policy minutiae that
verges on the photographic, and I make mistakes on
this list. I shudder to
IOW, you (pl.) say you don't prefer it if ONLY criminals carry weapons,
you (pl.) just want to change the law so everyone who carries a weapon is
by definition a criminal . . .
I didn't say that, and I didn't say anything about criminalizing guns. It is
my belief that there are relatively
At 06:31 PM 8/4/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:24:34 -0400
On Mon, Aug
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
I don't doubt that Limbaugh makes mistakes. He speaks
for, what, 2 hours a day, five days a week, 40+ weeks
a year, without a script? _Of course_ he makes
mistakes. I have a memory for policy minutiae that
verges on the photographic, and I make mistakes on
this list. I
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:57 PM 8/3/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols differently,
of course. But I saw many flying the flag who seemed to do so out
of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate. (Anyway, they would
say things like Kill all
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
What's fair about the others contaminating a symbol I
respect with things
I don't believe in?
Nothing. But then again, there is nothing unfair in it either. It's
*their* interpretation of the symbol. You may challenge it if you wish
to but that doesn't mean that
At 03:23 PM 8/4/03 +0530, Ritu wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
What's fair about the others contaminating a symbol I
respect with things
I don't believe in?
Nothing. But then again, there is nothing unfair in it either. It's
*their* interpretation of the symbol. You may challenge it if you
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
IOW, why should I fight fair in
defending the good
aspects of a symbol if others do not fight fair in contaminating
it?
Only one reason would make sense: that you believe in fighting fair
and
do not wish to pattern your behaviour on other people's less
Display and interpret any symbol the way
you wish to. If others get offended, it is their problem, not yours.
As long as *all* they do is feel offended. There have been reports, for
example, of Jews in some European countries being attacked for wearing kippot,
stars of David, and other
Tom Beck wrote:
The antidote to offensive speech is MORE speech, not less. I think
sometimes
people misinterpret politeness and civility as silence.
And silence as acquiescence. This is something I completely agree with.
Silence often ends up meaning that one lets the ridiculous memes hold
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you mean there
are certainly
_individual_ conservatives who support Coulter or
Falwell, but on the whole
they are persona non grata on the right.?
JDG
You're exactly right. Oops :-(
=
Gautam Mukunda
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He loves America - while hating all kinds of
Americans who don't happen to be
exactly like him. Rush Limbaugh succeeds by lying to
the public, by pandering
to their prejudices and to their completely
misplaced resentments and
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He loves America - while hating all kinds of
Americans who don't happen to be
exactly like him. Rush Limbaugh succeeds by lying to
the public, by pandering
to their prejudices and to their completely
misplaced resentments and grudges
and envies and greeds.
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guatam replied:
How arrogant. Basically your argument is that
Limbaugh is popular because he tricks the stupid
average Americans who listen to him, who are too
dumb
and foolish to see through him - unlike the great
and
wise Tom, who does. Just
Reggie Bautista wrote:
LIMBAUGH: The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect
against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would
you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five
passengers would be killed on the flight? Well,
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:24:34 -0400
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:21:37PM -0500, Julia Thompson
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 07:34:51PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps I've misunderstood your argument, Gauatam, but it seems to
me you are quite close to arguing a tautology: those on the Left
do not criticize Leftist extremists, and those who
The other edits the most important magazine of th Left.
I can't even reply to the other points, most of which seem to be personal
attacks. However, The Nation is not the most important magazine of the left. It
has a tiny circulation. I can't even remember the last time I snuck a peak at
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 09:54:16PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
They _are_. But their counterexamples aren't. You, Tom, are so far
gone in your hatred of everyone who disagrees with you that you can't
see that there are people on your side of the fence who are equally
vile as Coulter and
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:40:53AM -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
Perhaps I've misunderstood your argument, Gauatam, but it seems to me
^^^
Gautam
Sorry about that!
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, David, you proved my much larger point.
Congratulations, _you_ are the perfect example for why
the left has no relevance to American politics today.
You pegged it in one - I do say you're an extremist
too. If you really feel that it's reasonable to call
the American flag a symbol of
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I feel it is reasonable to call the US flag a
symbol of hatred, in the sense that many who wave
it most
fervently do so partially out of hate. You seem to
have
removed all of the modifiers from your restatement.
For comparison,
One of the reasons that people
like Rush Limbaugh are so successful at speaking to
the American public is that - unlike their opponents -
they _like_ the public. I have lots of problems with
Rush. But he loves America, and he loves Americans.
The American people rather like that and they
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps I've misunderstood your argument, Gauatam,
but it seems to me
you are quite close to arguing a tautology: those on
the Left do not
criticize Leftist extremists, and those who don't
criticize Leftist
extremists are lumped into the Left. I have
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He loves America - while hating all kinds of
Americans who don't happen to be
exactly like him. Rush Limbaugh succeeds by lying to
the public, by pandering
to their prejudices and to their completely
misplaced resentments and grudges
and envies and greeds.
At 07:34 PM 8/3/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Hi Erik. No, I don't think I'm arguing that. There
are certainly _individual_ conservatives who don't
support Coulter or Falwell, but on the whole they are
persona non grata on the right. They have no
constituency, no influence. Michael Moore -
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I feel it is reasonable to call the US flag a
symbol of hatred, in the sense that many who wave
it most
fervently do so partially out of hate. You seem to
have
removed all of the modifiers from your
At 09:57 PM 8/3/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote:
Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols differently,
of course. But I saw many flying the flag who seemed to do so out
of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate. (Anyway, they would
say things like Kill all Arabs!)
When others
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
...
Katha Pollitt, among many other things, famously
forbade her daughter from flying an American flag
after September 11th because it was a symbol of, IIRC,
jingoism and hate.
If that _doesn't_ bother you, then it explains why the
left has no traction in the United
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols
differently,
of course. But I saw many flying the flag who
seemed to do so out
of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate.
(Anyway, they would
say things like Kill all Arabs!)
When others
So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic
position
doesn't seem too far out.
The prosecution rests.
Huh? What does that mean? How does what he said prove the case? It seems to
me the opposite. She has been put forward as an example of an extremist whom
liberals should
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
...
When others have contaminated a symbol with things
one
does not believe in, one reasonable response is to
avoid using
the symbol. (Another is to attempt to reclaim it,
but either
should be fair.)
So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This argument has many flaws, but the most
important
one is that I do not have any clear idea of who
Katha Pollit
is, and might well have misspelled her name
repeatedly. : )
I was responding to YOUR examples of her
extremism.
She might
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh? What does that mean? How does what he said
prove the case? It seems to
me the opposite. She has been put forward as an
example of an extremist whom
liberals should denounce. But the examples given
make her seem somewhat less
extreme to me than, say, a
93 matches
Mail list logo
