Lawrence,

If you haven't said, or meant to say, anything bearing even the
remotest resemblance to the proposition that there isn't a significant
moral distinction to be made between one detonation of a weapon of
indiscriminate destruction in an urban centre (e.g. by terrorists) and
another (e.g. during the course of aerial bombardment by US forces),
then I have simply been hallucinating. I thought you said that, or
something like it. I thought the cartoon said that; rather
startlingly, for something published in the Times. I thought the
subsequent discussion said a small number of the interesting things,
as well as a good many quite uncouth and uninteresting things, that
can be said about that.

Your inferences based on the commentary supplied by the person who
posted the cartoon, are erroneous. Actually they are tendentious. I
will not protest my good intentions. I should be surprised if anyone
other than yourself thought there was any occasion for me to do so.

I cannot find it in myself to offer you a sincere apology, and will
not insult you with an insincere one.

Dominic


On 7/12/05, Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> You're out of order, Dominic
>
> _ I don't appear to have a terribly good strike-rate
> when it comes to figuring out what he's trying to say_
>
> you go from your failure, to me *trying to say something - so your apparently accurate description of your inability to understand a difference opinion with you, becomes *my failure to communicate
>
> and IF you cannot figure out not just what I am saying but what I am *trying to say, then you are in NO position to know if the cartoon makes one of my points - or a plausible near relative, are you?
>
> And the unfunny cartoon shows a very confused set of images which portray, I think, a comparison between terrorists who blow up civilians and usuk forces who blow up civilians
>
> And then we get to the hilarious punch line "Just the same strand of thinking that drew a moral equivalence between the two "sides" in Srebrenica"
>
> Now Srebrenica was a massacre in a different context
>
> And who exactly were the people who drew a moral equivalence between the 2? It's all very vague, just as the point you claim to find in what I have said
>
> Given that vagueness, it becomes unavoidable that you put me in that category of those who made that claim
>
> That is to libel me personally
>
> And you will apologise please
>
>
> L
>
>
>
>
>
>
> or Sarajevo.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominic Fox <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 2:55 PM
> Subject: Times cartoon
>
>
> Making what I take to be one of Lawrence's points (or a plausible
> near-relative - I don't appear to have a terribly good strike-rate
> when it comes to figuring out what he's trying to say) in the recent
> discussion for him:
>
> http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/07/12/equivalence.php
>
> Some of what I might want to say in answer to that suggestion of moral
> equivalence is said in the comments below; various counter-arguments
> to that, of varying strength, are also provided. The debate seems to
> be quite polarised; I doubt we should do better here than they seem to
> be managing there, so don't propose to take it up for the time being.
>
> Dominic
>
> --
> "The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas,
> obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity.
> With a little practice, writing can be an
> intimidating and impenetrable fog!" - Calvin
>


--
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas,
obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity.
With a little practice, writing can be an
intimidating and impenetrable fog!" - Calvin