[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: General Observation


  • To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
  • Subject: Re: General Observation
  • From: "LLonald King" <llon@comcast.net>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:07:10 -0700
  • In-reply-to: <4cb.386f5a.31b6e4fc@aol.com>
  • Thread-index: AcaJcfKImLn1H0z6T1aKXYDcHQYZCQAXBiWw

Art,



Aren't you the one who is always railing about the inanity of using Nazi
Germany and similar concepts figuratively or illustratively in discourse
that takes place on this list?

Hmmmm. Yes. You are the one.



LLon King





_____

From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org [mailto:arn-l-owner@interversity.org] On
Behalf Of ABurke5054@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:03 AM
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: [arn-l] General Observation



Yup, that's the way to increase nuanced discussion, all right -- ban people
who disagree with you. And there are good precedents for that -- Nazi
Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Mao's China. See how well nuanced discussion
improved in those places?



Art



In a message dated 6/6/2006 6:21:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jhorn@monmouth.edu writes:

I agree. Keeping Burke around eliminates the need for any nuanced
discussion of policy, assessment, curriculum or anything else. He is a
dependable and easy foil, pinata, and shameless idiot fool all rolled into
one. For those who engage him, it offers a semblance of moving a point
forward, when, in fact, any possible movement has been blocked by an
unremitting refusal to even see the beginning point. You are right,
Scott--this would be a very different list if he were booted, a fate he has
earned many times over.

Jim





Post a Message to arn-l:

Your name:

Your email address: (use the exact address you are subscribed with)

Subject line:

Message: