[Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend program schedule

[C. G. Estabrook]

I asked, "What, specifically, is the disenfranchisement of felons that
this conference seeks to end?"

And you replied, "Carl, you may find an answer to your question in what
Aaron said in his recent 'Public Square' commentary (included below)..."

It's hardly a "mischaracterization" to say that you offered the quoted
commentary as an answer to my question, namely a specification of the
goals of the conference. You now apparently deny that it is an answer to
my question, and I remain in the dark.

Regards, Carl


On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Randall Cotton wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
> To: "Randall Cotton" <recotton at earthlink.net>
> Cc: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "danielle schumacher"
> <danielle at illinoisnorml.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Forgiveness Weekend program schedule
> 
> 
> : Wait a minute, Randall: it was you who offered the quoted commentary as a
> : specification of the goals of the "conference," about which I asked.
> 
> To claim my citation of the Aaron's commentary was meant as a
> "specification of the goals of the conference", is yet another
> mischaracterization (you're on a roll, Carl 8-)
> 
> Let's review. You asked the following question:
> 
> "Disenfranchisements for released felons include the prohibition of owning a
> gun. What else?"
> 
> and I cited Aarons commentary because it itemized several other
> examples of disenfranchisement. Pretty straightforward.
> 
> : (I
> : won't insist on "rally," altho' it's arguable.) And now you say, "Aaron
> : never mentioned Forgiveness Weekend in this piece" -- so, presumably,
> : these are *not* the goals of the conference.  What, then, is the
> : conference for?
> 
> Again, this claim that Aaron's commentary constitutes the "goals of the
> conference" is your own invention.
> 
> : And surely you don't mean that people are not being asked to support
> : anything.  What I wanted to know was *what* they were being asked to
> : support.  Apparently the answer is (or maybe isn't) Aaron's commentary...
> 
> Well, I suppose whether people will be "asked" for "support" or not
> depends on interpretation. If you take this at face value (and I did),
> I took "being asked to support" to mean "individually challenged to
> assist with". And I tend to doubt that's what will happen. A different
> interpretation (yours, perhaps) might yield "collectively petitioned
> to agree with". And, indeed, I imagine there will be some of that.
> 
> : Can you dismiss the reference to the president as "inconsequential"? I
> : mentioned it merely to show that the information about felons'
> : disabilities was unreliable on its face. So I remain puzzled by the
> : question you ask: what restrictions on felons are under attack by CUCFPJ?
> 
> Well, my point was that if the claim about the President was the only
> thing that was inaccurate in the itemized list, it would hardly
> diminish the weight of the overall content.
> 
> However, on closer examination, I think it's possible that Aaron
> wasn't referring to the President *of the United States*. There is
> such as a thing as municipal President of a City council or Village
> Board of Trustees. Aaron's text reads "municipal elected office such
> as Mayor or city council member or President." Rereading now, it
> actually seems more likely to me that he meant a municipal President
> (which is akin to a Mayor). It's certainly a valid interpretation of
> the phrase as it stands.
> 
> : Or (as I asked at the outset of this correspondence), "What, specifically,
> : is the disenfranchisement of felons that this conference seeks to end?"
> : I still don't know.
> 
> Indeed, such a statement of purpose was never revealed. But do
> conferences require such definitive statements of purpose? Isn't it
> sufficient for a conference to just exist as a series of scheduled
> presentations, speeches and discussions loosely organized around a
> topic? Perhaps that's all we're dealing with here, and that doesn't
> negate its value.
> 
> I do agree, though, that there does seem to be a bit of an information
> vacuum regarding the conference. There's not much detail available and
> people wish they knew more (and not necessarily because they feel
> uneasy about the conference as you do 8-).
> 
> Perhaps Danielle or someone else in CUCFPJ will have time to inform us
> a little more soon.
> 
> R
>