>Mark (and list),
Thought I'd respond to Mark off-list, but decided to post.
Most of what I forward comes to me in email form and I have no URL to supply.
Also, as links tend to expire over time, I want to make sure the pertinent
info gets into the archives.
I fear that items like the David Horowitz story in The Nation will be lost
to future researchers because it was not posted in its entirety to the list
(and thereby the archives).The same with the Remarque obituary, et al.
where links only are supplied. I personally would prefer the entire text
rather than just the link.
[modr8r note: i agree with the above sentiment, the archives are an
important component of the list, and should be as complete as possible]
As far as the contents of the posts I forward, my focus IS on the extremes
(as you note), because I think the best way to get at the truth of an
issue is to hear the opposing views and then decide for yourself. If
they're badly written and obfuscatory, so be it. It's a reflection on the
author and/or the position taken. (cf. Horowitz) These are all difficult
and volatile issues. Please feel free to post some of your calmly reasoned
favorites. (in full text, please!)
And yes to your call for asserted decorum!
Mark Bunster writes:
>Radman, this has nothing to do with you personally, but I find that a large
>majority of the items you repost--and while I enjoy them, bandwidth might
>served by a hypertext link instead of full reposting--feature badly slanted
>rhetoric and poor writing skills overall. And that's from the left AND the
>as we see today. It is very difficult for me to consider the arguments
>when so much obfuscation and ill care is taken with the language. This
>to otherwise excellent points made by listmembers, lost in a haze of bad
>epithets. Let me add my voice to the group who desperately wishes to see
>of decorum assert itself in our conversations!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 24 2000 - 08:03:35 CUT