From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Apr 12 2003 - 11:01:13 MDT
Brian writes
> I have noticed on the list that anybody who critisizes
> American foreign policy is immediately branded anti-American
That is just your imagination, Brian. Please find where
any particular person has been so branded. (Even if you
were to succeed---which I think unlikely---you will still
find that there is argument advanced to support the
contention.) But I realize that you are reacting to
Michael Dickey's
> > [Brian wrote]
> >
> > > There has never been reasonable proof that
> > > Iraq was a threat to the states, sometime
> > > Ron H's blind patriotism is beyond belief.
> > Brian Booth says that America shouldn't react
> > because there was no reasonable proof that the
> > USA was threatened. There has always been
> > reasonable proof that Iraq was a threat to the
> > states. Sometimes Brian Booth's blind anti-
> > Americanism is beyond belief.
> > Brian, I hope this post illustrates the futility
> > of your post.... then your comments serve to do
> > nothing except preach to the choir.
> > Regards,
> > Michael Dickey
Michael made it perfectly clear that he was just echoing
your insult. The deeper point here (that Michael was
trying to convey but I think that you missed) was that
there is very little content to saying that someone's
"blind patriotism is beyond belief". It is about as
empty as saying that someone's "anti-Americanism is
beyond belief".
Perhaps insults are or are not warranted on this list---
there has been some good discussion of this---but if they
are, they *must* be backed up with argument. Otherwise,
they're just what are often called "flames", right?
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 12 2003 - 11:10:19 MDT