Re: your mail

>>>>> "jane" == jane craig <[email protected]> writes:

  jane> kendall, for the third time since our last correspondence,
  jane> i've checked mf site.  your byline of dallas, tx, dated 9/11.
  jane> specifically the 1st paragraph, last sentence.  there are no
  jane> "" marks and no attributions to others.  

And for the last time, I will explain your confusion to you. I wrote
everything that the Monkeyfist site attributes to me. Your original
message -- which purported to *quote* something I had written -- did
*not* quote me correctly. You paraphrased poorly something I wrote,
put quotation marks around it, twisted its obvious meaning in context
into something you thought you could criticize me with.

But you botched the quote and since you put quotation marks around it,
I took you to be saying that I'd written what you said I'd written,
except I hadn't written *that*, and so I didn't recognize it. And so I
said "I didn't say that".

Ever since then you've been trying to make some point about "who
writes your stuff" which is, in case you can't tell, stupid and
juvenille and makes you look like a nitwit.

Just stop it. Now.

To review for the last time: I said in my piece that "of more
immediate concern" was the racist reaction of *many* Americans to the
terrorist bombings. What I clearly said and meant was that the racist
reaction was more immediately concerning than the other two things
that would be examined in the months ahead: 1) whether US foreign
policy is a contributing cause of global terrorism; and 2) whether
that policy is racist.

While those are important questions, they are not the most pressing
questions *right now*; one question that is more pressing than them
*right now* is the seeming epidemic of racist violence against "Arabs"
that's happened since Tuesday and which shows little sign of
relenting.

        the question then,
  jane> again, after your protestation to the contrary is:  are those
  jane> your words and if not, from where do they derive? 

Ok, we'll go very slow and use little words. All the words on
Monkeyfist that appear under my byline (the part that says "by Kendall
Clark") were written by me; except in those cases where an article
says that someone else contributed (that means "wrote part of") to the
article, in which case some of the words in that article were not
written by me, though I endorse all of them as if I had written them.

What I did *not* write is the lame paraphrase of my words that *you*
wrapped in quotation marks.

        secondly, is
  jane> that really THE main or immediate concern in light of what has
  jane> transpired?  

For the fourth or fifth time, A can be a greater concern than B
without A being a greater concern *than every other concern*; you can
only be confused about what I've said because you don't understand
this very simple point.

        is it not equally as important to focus on the
  jane> carnage, loss and rescue attempts?  

Well, yes and no. It depends on what you mean by "focus" and it
depends on *who you are* and what your job is. If you are a rescue or
relief worker, yes, it's clearly more important to do your job than to
do someone else's job.

If you are an antiracist activist and a writer, it may well be more
important to write about the outbreak of ugly racist violence than it
is to write about the "carnage, loss and rescue attempts";
particularly if you are, like me, not especially privy to interesting
or new details about "the carnage, loss and rescue attempts".

        the vast majority of
  jane> americans can and do distinguish between terrorists and decent
  jane> folks of any persuasion or stripe.  

I"m not concerned about the 'vast majority' since in a country of
300,000,000 that still leaves enough racist thugs to hurt and
intimidate plenty of non-Whites.

        they all condemn terror
  jane> and violence visited upon other humans and there is NO
  jane> justification for thugs to abuse decent people that happen to
  jane> be arab, muslim, shiite, sikh or anything else for that
  jane> matter.  

And yet exactly that is happening all over the country, including at
least one murder and several attempted murders. Dozens and dozens of
acts of intimidation and terror.

        and they do that because they themselves are decent
  jane> people.  decent people that do so because it's the right thing
  jane> to do.  not because someone has issued a "call for all white
  jane> folk to condemn"...

Well, says you, right? You don't know how much mail or support I've
gotten for that article, do you? You're simply speculating.

Besides, you still can't read what I've very plainly said; I didn't
suggest we all simply "tolerate Arabs"; I said that it was White
people's minimal moral duty to *interfere* with our fellow citizens if
and when we see them engaging in anti-Arab racism.

Again, you're tilting at windmills. How about engaging what I actually
say? Or going away. Your choice.

        as an aside, could you direct me to the
  jane> spot where you have condemned specifically those who committed
  jane> these terrorist and cowardly attacks?

But I thought you had no interest, as you claim below, in ideological
conformity? Why would you assume I would support such acts? And if you
don't assume I support them, why ask the question except that it's
become today's version of "are you now or have you ever been a member
of the Communist Party?"

  jane> in answer to your question, kendall, you need not "rally"
  jane> behind anyone or anything.  you are a man with opinions as am
  jane> I.  ours happen usually to be diametrically opposed and that's
  jane> ok.  

So you don't know *what* my position is -- since you demand that I
point you to a place where I've given my position -- but you're sure
that it's diametrically opposed to yours? Odd, that.

        the US will respond and in my opinion, probably respond
  jane> correctly.  

Since you are only "probably" sure Bush will engage in the correct
response, what are you doing as a citizen to narrow the gap between
what they might do and what you think they should do? Does hectoring
me with stupid questions help?

        you may or may not agree and that's ok, too.
  jane> whatever it is that you "rally" behind or for, more than
  jane> likely we will continue to disagree. i will, however, reserve
  jane> the right to read mf website and respond accordingly to
  jane> whomever's words you stamp your name.  

So you'll keep reading the site I work on. Whew! That's a relief! :>

        moreover, you've given
  jane> your share of low-rent cheap shots as well, some quite
  jane> gratuitous and ad homminem and pretty funny too.  

Again with the coyness! It's of course easier to say than to show
this.

        i think
  jane> really, though, that me being more adroit at lobbing insults
  jane> is what distresses you most.  respectfully, james

*Almost* James! You almost got it right here. Yes, I agree with you,
you *are* more insulting than I am. But, no, alas, I'm not distressed
about that.

Best,
Kendall Clark