Re: [sixties-l] Re: say what?

From: Jerry West (
Date: 10/10/00

  • Next message: Jeffrey Blankfort: "Re: [sixties-l] Mercy for a Terrorist? [SLA]"

    Michael Rossman wrote:
    ....You've taken an ancillary paragraph out of its context (discussion
    of list-behavior), and used it to poke at me in a manner completely
    unrelated to the content of my post. Yet the problem here is less in
    this formality, than in how you've done it. You seem to be trying to
    reduce the meaning of my contribution to a black/white litmus test: am I
    for or against the SLA?
    JW reply:
    Irrelevant as it may be to the main issue it was the ancillary paragraph
    that was of interest to me, Michael, particularly when the message that
    I received was, to paraphrase:
    - I abhor violence and killing but we must consider the circumstances
    around this particular act of violence -
    Now, I may be just a simple farm boy and perhaps I failed to see the
    nuances in your statement, thus misinterpreting it, but I could not tell
    whether you were trying to give the message that:
    you abhor violence, but this case is an exception because....,
    or that you abhor violence including this case but here are the reasons
    I think they did it....
    As you say not very relevant to the main point of your post, but still
    if the ancillary points are unclear they tend to muddy the water around
    the main point.
    Jerry West
    On line news from Nootka Sound & Canada's West Coast
    An independent, progressive regional publication

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/10/00 EDT