Re: Moderator's warning

[Adam Levenstein <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Eli Stephens <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hopefully I won't be thought hopelessly bourgeois to suggest
> this to
> Louis. The kind of name-calling that transpires on this list, and
> especially
> the filthy language, is absolutely uncalled for and unworthy of
> anyone who
> purports to be taking part in a serious discussion.

I would be vigorously opposed to such a rule, but I wouldn't call you
bourgeois. Just mistaken. :)

Name-calling is one thing. I agree, and I think everyone else agrees,
it's rather pointless to call Jose an arrogant motherfucker just
because he called me (by implication) ultraleft. Even if it's true.
(Just kidding, Jose. ;)

But banning "vulgar" language--whatever "foul" or "vulgar" or "filthy"
language is--is over the top. Sometimes it fits in quite well with
political discourse, and sometimes it helps to make a point
particularly strong. That's why it exists. A lot of people--Nestor,
Louis, Muhammed, Jose--have used various "colorful metaphors" to make a
strong, humorous, or outraged political point. I know when Michael
Lerner decided to attack the anti-war movement through
anti-semite-baiting ANSWER, the first thoughts that came to my mind
would, if taken literally, not only be physiologically impossible but
also make for a very interesting geneological study of Lerner's family.

But I digress. My point is, "vulgar" language can be offensive, but it
can also be part of an insightful point or humorous comment.

Adam


=====
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Levenstein                          cleon42@xxxxxxxxx
ICQ: 17125158

There may be no such thing as a stupid question,
but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com