Hi Tim,
but you DO have every right to reply. That's the point. Nobody has
taken that *right away from you. Please Do reply and on the issue at
hand, namely Mark's post about Winthrop's city on a hill' and Richard's
response. His original post (original in the sense in which you use it)
was the subject of rebuke. His more recent post was claimed to be
racist; that was Lawrence's charge. I cannot act on that charge as I do
not - as yet - find it having foundation. I cannot impune something
which is not evidenced based upon previous mail.
I'm not defending Richard per se, so much as his right to counter
argue. Make your arguments.
btw, you suggest that there is such a thing as a good USAmerican
imperialist - is that true - is it anything like a benevolent
British colonialist?
love and love
cris
On 12 Jun 2004, at 15:44, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> cris etc,
>
> I back lawrence in this because I am in complete agreement with his
> anger at richard's post. i have been on the wrong-end of richard's
> nasty bcs in the past and to me he comes across as the worst kind of
> american imperialist, and like Lawrence I thought the wording of his
> original post re the possible extradition to US of the extremist
> cleric, who i can't think the name of at the moment, was racist and
> highly offensive. Yes, we can argue about what constitutes racism...
>
> Airy-fairy liberalism? Oh i don't know, I got annoyed when lawrence
> seemed to be being attacked simply because he expressed his anger -
> the tone of disaproval was the old two wrongs don't make a right thing
> and I thought what the hell, if this Richard joker is going to post
> his offensive remarks then we have every right to reply. That's all.
> nothing deep or considered about it.
>
> Tim A.
|