Re: Nader's Big Chance

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Dave Rolsky wrote:
[snip]
> I'm sleazy for trying to include other people in a discussion I think
> is worth having?

Nope, but that's not what I said was sleazy.

> I didn't think this mailing list was a forum for convincing wacko
> republicans

Never said it was.

> (which seems highly optimistic), I thought it was a forum for
> discussion.

Which it is.

>  Maybe not?

More sleaze.

Take your own point, the *manner* in which you conduct a discussion has
some weight.

Allow me to present an illustrative caricature:

A note sent to a public forum:

"Dear xxxx,

By and large, people who do Y are secret pedophiles. I'm not saying
*you're* one, of course, but that's how people who do Y come across to
some people.

So please consider not doing Y.

Cheers,
zzzz."

Note that zzzz and xxxx have already discussed the tactical legitimacy of
Y, but zzzz fails to mention that, nor does he bother to raise or address
any of the points raised in that discussion.

Note that zzzz is making *tactical* arguments about the need to *appear* a
certain way in writing. Thus, presumably either zzzz is well versed in the
arts of rhetoric -- and thus *knows* how his insuinations are being read,
or he's so careless that he should be *very* cautious about speaking in
public, or he's completely un-self-aware. Indeed, this begins to seem like
a bit of projection, espeically when zzzz admits that avoiding "seeming
like a pedophile" is an obsession.

Finally, note that zzzz doesn't respond to most of the substantive points
against him, nor does he provide evidence for his own claims (though he
demands absurd amounts of evidence for others), and why accused of playing
a sleazy game resorts to further sleaze of precisely the same nature.

Dave, perhaps you don't *mean* to do this. Perhaps you're really, really
well meaning at heart. But *your own tactical principles*, the ones you
*relentlessly* try to foist upon me, dictate that you take a different
tact.

Now, if *you* don't follow your pronouncments *and* fail to provide
evidence for their worth, why should I take what you say at all seriously?

Try leading by *example*. I'll happily read any anti-racism piece you
write and examine it carefully to glean some understanding of the
technique you proselytize.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.