Sorry to interupt the disscusion, but why is the opinion about IAC in USA
such a nasty one?
Clark certainly has a delicate past, but I do believe in ethical redemption.
And, during those dread months of bombing, I must stress , I got much more
help from IAC people who were coming here, than from Chomsky who was
moralizing ( usefully and objectively if not accurately, as always)....
That is not to say that i underestimate huge theoretical critical impact on
the people about bombings, but only to say that the help of IAC and Clark
himself was very viable and comforting during US milliary savagery over here
in Yugoslavia.
Although we, individuals and leftist collectives in Belgrade  who are
inclined to libertarian socialism do not appreciate ideology behind IAC, we
were impressed by there devotion and tireless, honest efforts in helping the
civilians here as well as breaking the mainstream propaganda brick wall. I
dont know if he is an idiot , but he was certainly "usefull", in the terms
of human lifes, that is.
Respectfuly,
                        Andrej

----- Original Message -----
From: Tresy Kilbourne <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] The direction of this forum


> 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