Doesn't purpose 1 cover everything that has been discussed recently,
with the exception of the exchange about signatures?  Even that one
was related to anarchism, since it involved admitted willful copyright
violation by an anarchist.  There was also the scolding for sending
what should have been private email to the list, which, by its
submission to the list, the scolder violated his own principle,
apparently without irony.  Even that one illustrated Chmosky's model
in action.  Namely, that the scolder's violation of the principle was
good and proper, and the enemy's violation of the same principle was
bad.

There hasn't been any discussion in purpose 2.  There have been a few
submissions in 3 and none in 4 that I can remember.  When I started
the current discussion, there had been nothing on the list for several
weeks, if I'm not mistaken.  If it weren't for this discussion and the
past ones like it, there would be very little traffic at all, except
when the US does something that upsets.  In that sense I agree with
your assessment.

We can expect a surge in traffic toward the end of next month as the
WTO conference begins.  I'll be there for most of that period, so if
the discussions on the list don't improve, it won't be my fault.

martin