+
From: John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 12:48:42 -0400
There have been remarks lately on the quality of discourse on
the list -- with the imputation by some that a disagreement is
a flame.
Flaming dis: The raise-the-quality-of-discourse civilists are
advocating "civility" and privilege-serving syntax as a means
to reassert and preserve their lazy unearnings. Like Roger
Scruton's "Modern Philosophy," New Urbanism,
Neo-Traditionalism, Neo-Classicism, New Criterion, and the
other neo-paleoisms parasitically milking others hard-won
innovation through the ages. And taking easy potshots from
bastions built by others to avoid taking personal risks.
As you know, a common dispute on many off- and on-net fora is
that of what constitutes appropriate discourse and who is to
say, with the authoritarians and antis gnashing and gnoshing.
This parallels a similar dispute about design and architecture
and philosophy and literature and life style and ...
My forward was a mock-eloquent-taunting example of the
insult/insulted design both sides use to taunt out the other
and send signals to adherents. Usually followed by a batch of
me-toos, don't leave, good riddance, and so on.
All for Calvin Kleinian display for evanescent products -- neo
and paleo design-- by all of us.
Fomentingly,
JY