Hi Maria-Stella,

>> Jim Tantillo wrote:
>> >In response to John F., Maria-Stella, Ted Mosquin perhaps (?), and to any
>> >others who may feel that *any* and all criticisms of environmentalists
>> >and/or of environmentalism constitutes a single, monolithic form of
>> >disloyal "anti-environmentalism":
>
>I do not accept the collective packaging of names and certainly i did not
>put *stars* to *any* above.

If the "collective packaging of names" above is not to your liking then I
am more than happy to single you out for special recognition. <smile>
Weren't you the person whose (only) post to the list in April was titled,
"Anti-Envrironmental Propaganda"?  (see e.g.
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/enviroethics/2000-04/0242.html ).

Well, I've checked out the web link that you provided (at
http://environmental.networkroom.com/directorybytopic/myths/ ), (after all,
where do you think I got the Fumento myth-bashing link--why, thanks,
Maria-Stella  <g>).    And while *some* of the web sites listed there are
perhaps more "propagandistic" than others, I think you are likely guilty of
some serious rhetorical overkill by labeling the site (and/or everything
listed there) as "organized anti-environmental propaganda."  After all, and
to take but one example: if Michael Fumento is actually *right* about about
the kinds of science policy issues he tends to address, then why should we
think of what he does as "propaganda"?

Personally, I think the phrase, "Socratic cultural criticism" would be a
more accurate description. <s>  (Fumento himself prefers the term,
"Mythbusting.")

Thus I think that your somewhat gleeful 24 April email to the list, which
contained the above link and the message, "Organized anti-environmental
propaganda links can be found on . . . Have fun!", gives us some *pretty
compelling* albeit circumstantial evidence that you do belong in the
collective packaging of names above.  Forgive me if I am wrong.  The only
one I have any real doubts about is Ted M., he's only posted to the list
once, which is why I said "perhaps" and added the question mark.  (I hope
Ted will participate some more.)  I am, however, somewhat more confident in
my judgment about your predilections: after all, *you* are the one throwing
around what appear to me to be *indiscriminate* charges of
"anti-environmentalism."  And, as for Mr. Foster . . .  well, let's just
say that "it goes without saying."  <s>

So, Maria-Stella, you have my sincere apologies for lumping you in with the
others.  You're right, you deserved to be singled out for special
recognition.  :-)

(Maria-Stella: I am gently teasing you here, and I hope you interpret it as
such.)



>[M-S.]: However, your explanation -below is to me
>jargon. Can you explai a bit more simply for your foreign friends pelase?
>(although i bet there's nothing wrong with my english!!!).
>
>>>Jim here:
> I would like to argue instead that this
>>
>> >constitutes a pragmatic mode of cultural criticism (with the culture in
>> >this case being "environmentalism," i.e. as a social movement or even as
>> > afixed body of ideas, I suppose).

I'm not exactly sure what here is "jargon," so help me if I pick the wrong
term to explain.  But the idea of "cultural criticism" can translate more
simply as "analysis."  Such cultural criticism or analysis does not
necessarily have to be negative in tone: compare e.g. to literary
"criticism," where one studies a literary work and offers commentary,
explanation, exegesis, criticism, analysis, all at once.  Cultural
criticism is like that.  Perhaps some others on the list such as Tom Frank
might want to add a bit more. . . .  ?

but for now, I hope this brief attempt at explaining "jargon" will suffice.

Jim T.


>>
>>
>> <John responed in part with:>
>> It is pretty difficult to lump all environmentalist together into
>> conveient little label and put in on a sticky note so you cannot easily
>> forget.
>>
>> Steve here:
>> John, he isn't lumping ALL environmentalist together.  Read the first
>> sentence again.  He is clearly picking out a subset.
>>
>>
>> John further responded with:
>> However you would the patience of Job, the memory of an elephant, and the
>> tentacles of the octopus. What sociologist is capable of that. Perhaps
>> Erving Goffman could be hired to stand watch these people behave in public
>> places so as to see when the scratch themselves, blink, etc.
>>
>> Steve again:
>> What in the world are you saying?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> =====
>> "In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe
>>in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
>> --Jamey Lee West
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
>> http://invites.yahoo.com/
>>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%