josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/09/85)
> mmt: > It is hard to determine whether JoSH is obtuse, deliberately appearing > to be obtuse, or just inflammatory. If he claims that ANY law puts > nation above individual, and is therefore fascist, he has redefined > "fascist" to a meaningless level of generality. If he claims ANY law > restricting gun ownership is fascist because it is a "tendency or actual > exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control", I don't, or I wouldn't use the term to characterize one specific city, or one specific law. > I suspect he > should look at how Chicago selects its autocrats. My understanding is > that they have elections, as elsewhere, and that Richard Daley no longer > rigs them to the level that Chicago has a dictator nowadays. I think that Chicago's gun laws actually date from the Daley days... > If JoSH > means that any law is fascist simply because it is a law, ... This straw man is almost worthy of Tim Sevener. > JoSH at least owes Greg Kuperberg an apology for the libel in saying > he was deliberately lying. > Martin Taylor Let me quote the actual statement: > >... Furthermore, I suspect that Greg (a) knows what I meant, > >(b) knows what "fascist" in common usage means, and therefore (c) > >was deliberately lying in claiming the opposite. -- But I *did* suspect Greg of lying. And I haven't seen anything in the meantime to change my mind. --JoSH
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/14/85)
alice!jj (once of rabbit) has both privately and publicly indicated his
displeasure at my comments on JoSH's notions of what constitutes fascism
and his accusation that Greg Kuperberg was lying (!phew -- is that a
sentence or not?).
Once upon a time, I used to flame JJ for his style of flamethrowing
at the net, so I can accept it easily when he does it to me. On rethinking
what I wrote, I intended to apologize to JoSH, because I really don't
believe he writes with any malicious intent. Occasionally I read
articles that pile on top of others equally (to my mind) outrageous,
and something blows. The particular article may not deserve the
outburst, and for that I apologize to JoSH.
I don't think what I wrote deserves the label "ad-hominem attack".
Only the beginning, where I speculated whether JoSH was obtuse,
trying to appear obtuse, or just inflammatory. After, reading
JoSH's remarkably mild rejoinder, I retract, and substitute misguided.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt