[Peace-discuss] AWARE

[jgeo61 at comcast.net]

I think I have stated that several times quite clearly. I think there is room enough for two e addresses to host more than one discussion at a time. 

Laurie, who is the joke? 

Joy George 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu> 
To: jgeo61 at comcast.net 
Cc: slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net, ewj at pigs.ag, "Matt Reichel" <mattreichel at hotmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 5:00:12 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE 

Uh, what would count as a "solution"? 

Matt at least has suggested one... 


jgeo61 at comcast.net wrote: 
> Silly? I support the First Amendment as much as you do. I want another 
> venue, stage, arena for the 3-4 of you to debate your issues as often and as 
> fervently as you wish to. I want as many AWARE folks to read and enjoy as 
> they wish to and to respond in kind if they chose to. I and the many who 
> have contacted me personally through all of this, want a space too to talk 
> about some differing issues related to peace. When I am on this list, I do 
> feel as if I have arrived at a party 15min. late and now am having trouble 
> adapting to the current topic of conversation. I know that it will be just 
> as difficult to change the conversation even if I can get my toe in. 
> 
> I want to know why you folks need an audience of 165 plus readers to host 
> your own conversations? For the record, 30 plus msgs. per day are too many 
> for many of us to listen to. No, I will not take my toys and go home; I want 
> a solution to this issue. 
> 
> Joy George 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu> 
> To: "Matt Reichel" <mattreichel at hotmail.com> Cc: jgeo61 at comcast.net, 
> slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net, ewj at pigs.ag Sent: 
> Saturday, September 5, 2009 12:34:16 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: 
> Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE 
> 
> Oh, Matt -- don't be silly. From your first line ("banning Carl and Wayne") 
> I thought you were engaged in a Stephen Colbert-style jeu d'esprit, a long 
> satire of the free-speech liberal calling for banning of speech... 
> 
> But then I concluded, with rising dismay, that you were serious -- I hope I'm 
> wrong -- so I'll try to answer your charges: 
> 
> [1] "hate-monger": no, I don't recommend hate even against people with 
> despicable ideas or my enemies; I belong to a tradition that insists upon 
> loving enemies, difficult as that may be. 
> 
> [2] "homophobe": no, not just because "some of my best friends...," but 
> because I don't think holding (as I do) that the ethics of sexual behavior 
> are debatable and at the same time not very important qualifies one as such. 
> 
> [3] "irrelevant tangents": Stuart's been upset with this, too, but I thought, 
> e.g., that the discussion of the meaning of "pontificate" was an amusing way 
> to respond to a ridiculous objection -- and it was interesting: we discovered 
> (I think) that the common English connotation grew out of a political 
> dispute. 
> 
> [4] "pretentious off-color remarks": this one has me stumped (and the 
> puritanism surprises, given your taste for Anglo-Saxon); the best I can come 
> up with is my reference to "mailboxes getting stuffed," which could be 
> regarded as a Brit (hence pretentious) euphemism (hence off-color). 
> 
> [5] "anarchistic": guilty. As a yellow-dog Chomskyan, I wish to imitate his 
> anarchism/libertarian socialism (with the understanding that "libertarian" 
> here does not mean "libertarian" in the contemporary American sense), a 
> position to the left of M-L sects. 
> 
> [6] "overbearing personalities": me?! Why, you'll quite turn my head ... but 
> my professional history suggests I've rarely if ever been able to overbear 
> much of anybody. 
> 
> [7] "weekly news updates": you haven't been around for a while, Matt. They're 
> an example of [6], in that they were silenced at AWARE meetings because they 
> were improperly "framed." 
> 
> [8] "apology made for regressive 'anti-war' conservatives": 
> paleoconservatives have consistently been principled opponents of the war, a 
> position always defended on the Left but rarely (and decreasingly) by 
> liberals. 
> 
> [9] "reminders that mainstream Democrats have, by and large, betrayed their 
> progressive base": you agree that they have done so, apparently, and the 
> reminder is hardly redundant for many self-styled liberals in what Chomsky 
> (and other) call the political class. 
> 
> [10] "Ron Paul is somehow better than Dennis Kucinich": he's certainly had 
> more effect (an old Trot friend of mine thinks Dennis is just an example of 
> repressive tolerance), but where they disagree (generally in economics) I'm 
> usually on Dennis' side. 
> 
> [11] "multi-millionaire": now you've done it! My wife just looked over my 
> shoulder and is raging about "Where are you hiding it!?" with angry 
> mutterings about Bernie Medoff... 
> 
> [12] "racist": I'll ask the black and white members of my family to debate 
> this one. 
> 
> [13] "xenophobe": I'm thinking of going and living in Venice (or maybe 
> Paris...); does that exculpate me? 
> 
> [14] "no passion for the good of your country": well, I would have supported 
> neither the American Revolution nor the Civil War, though my family did; in 
> fact a good bit of my adult life has been taken up with learning, somewhat 
> uncomfortably, what might count as "the good of my country": e.g., JFK's 
> inaugural speech was I now think fascistic. 
> 
> OK, now tote up the score, like the magazine quizzes: 
> 
> 0-3 -- terminate with extreme prejudice 4-6 -- ride him out of town on a rail 
> 7-9 -- allow him to attend meetings, but only with an S&M gag in place 10-12 
> -- allow him to post to the list, but no more than once a day, and only after 
> the text has been passed by The Committee for relevance & framing above 12 -- 
> for he's a jolly good fellow...! 
> 
> Solidarity, CGE 
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Reichel wrote: 
>> I think most of this list's problems would be solved by just banning 
> Carl and 
>> Wayne: maybe they can go and create their own peace group for 
> hate-mongering 
>> homophobes and litter each others' inboxes with their irrelevant 
> tangents and 
>> pretentious off-color remarks. 
>> 
>> AWARE cannot go on without any organizational infrastructure, as 
> attractive 
>> as it sounds to be "anarchistic." A simple, respectful level of 
> organization 
>> backed by a widely supported set of rules will make the group more 
>> democratic, and less prone to dominance by overbearing personalities and 
>> their seemingly regressive ends. 
>> 
>> Since everyone that has left the group or that are currently 
> frustrated with 
>> its direction seem to have a problem with the same person, why don't 
> you just 
>> give him the old "heave ho"? Because his weekly news updates are 
> supposedly 
>> of some value? Because you want to hear every possible apology made for 
>> regressive "anti-war" conservatives, coupled with redundant reminders 
> that 
>> mainstream Democrats have, by and large, betrayed their progressive 
> base? So 
>> Ron Paul is somehow better than Dennis Kucinich? . . I guess if you are a 
>> multi-millionaire, racist, xenophobe with no passion for the good of your 
>> country . . 
>> 
>> Will someone down there please find the courage to defend the 
> integrity of 
>> this group and lay a ban down on the aforementioned assholes? 
>> 
>> Best, Matt 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090906/6e640457/attachment.html