If I recall correctly this is the person who was outraged at my post of an
article by Nation correspondent Ian Williams on the folks at the IAC and
their useful idiot Ramsey Clark.
So much for commitment to the free, civil exchange of ideas.
What is really getting under some people's skin, IMO, is that there are
dissenters and gadflies on this list. Some boundaries are not meant to be
crossed. The Chomsky model in action again.
--
Tresy Kilbourne
Seattle WA
----------
>From: Bergesons <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [CHOMSKY] The direction of this forum
>Date: Thu, Oct 7, 1999, 11:53 PM
>
> I certainly agree with the excessive personal attacks, one-upsmanship, etc.
> that has plagued the list. I am more interested in people communicating
> with some other purpose than to prove themselves correct and others wrong.
> As a courtesy, I would tend to extend debates of these kinds into personal
> (off-list) debates. That said, however, I cannot really sympathize with
> complaints about tired delete keys. If you don't want to read a particular
> message or a line of tendentious or trivial tit for tat, just delete it.
> All messages are appended with sender and subject lines. If you want to
> discuss something else in a different vein, just use a different subject
> heading. All of the sniping has been going on under the same subject
> heading, providing an easy way to simply put the messages directly into the
> trash, if you aren't interested. Restricting the forum in other ways would
> seem to me to violate important criteria of free political debate. The
> Chomsky forum, of all places, should encourage free political debate.
> Civility, collaboration, mutual respect, and a sense of common purpose would
> also be nice, but not at the expense of freedom, in my opinion.
>
> Soren
|