[Peace-discuss] AWARE

Sat Sep 5 23:03:43 CDT 2009

It could very well be us all who are the joke. It is often hard to tell what is being put out there as a joke and what is intended to be serious.  If I did not know better, I would take all that Wayne says as a joke and much of what Carl presents  with a large grain of salt.  But they are not the only ones who are posting or forwarding materials that are redundant, propaganda from someone’s agenda, or just plain silliness. 

 I find it harder and harder to regard the posts on this list seriously; if anything, they could very well drive me to support the opposition.  Many of the so-called discussions are inane and/or irrelevant (and should be reserved for private emails between the participants rather than put on this list); those that are not inane and irrelevant tend to be repetitive in nature while taking on a variety of forms and not discussions at all but commentary and assertions (which are directed at persons who already are in essential agreement with what has been said and do not need to be beaten over the head with different commentaries supporting the same or similar points or someone’s agenda).

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of jgeo61 at comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 8:15 PM
To: C. G. Estabrook
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu; ewj at pigs.ag
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AWARE

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/20090905/50ad89f5/attachment-0001.htm