From: mgflax@flower.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re: Ted babbles again
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:47:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.143813.21430@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.223836.21720@Princeton.EDU> mgflax@flower.Princeton.EDU (Marshall G. Flax) writes:
>
>[...stuff...] (Have you accomplished your crafts project yet, Marshall?)

For people who entered this discussion recently: Ed's parenthetical
remark above refers to his suggestion that I "fart in a bottle and paint
it."  Much of what he wrote before can simply be interpreted as his
trying to obscure the inanity of that suggestion.

>Most of what Marshall posts is undeserving of comment.  But I will
>address two things.

I'm ever so grateful.

>>>     (1)  Strictly speaking, that was a request, not ridicule.  It did
>>>          not hold Marshall's thoughts or feelings up to scorn, but
>>>          requested that he perform an unnatural act.
>>
>>Ed, your sophistry grows tedious.  You lost your temper and your cool.
>>It would be more mature if you would just admit it.
>
>Is "sophistry" replying to one who believed that he had the last word?

No.  It's sophistry when you claim that an immature insult is something
other than an immature insult.

>When you grow weary of your teachers at Princeton, I wonder whether you
>have the courage to tell them that "your sophistry grows tedious."

While I had some duds at Princeton, I never had any tell me to "fart in
a bottle and paint it" and then rationalize it away.  Your analogy fails.

>Unlikely; I've attended classes at Princeton as a Continuing Education
>student, and I was unnerved by the apathy of your generation and its
>failure to engage its teachers in dialogue.

1. I am not responsible for the sins of every member of my generation.
2. I engaged my professors in dialogue.  I just didn't use baby-insults.

>>And, as in the question of "what deserves to be censored", it's Ed
>>Nilges who gets to decide what's what.  Yeah, right.
>
>Marshall, I have no power beyond my ability to post and I'd like to put
>to rest once and for all this criticism, which appears so frequently in
>response to posters who have non-mainstream views.

1. You have many powers beyond your ability to post, Ed.  No one should
sell themselves *that* short.

2. Not all "posters [with] non-mainstream views" are critized as
censoring.  Only those who advocate censorship at every turn.

>I'll warrant that
>when you enter your first job, you won't tell your boss, "who made you
>able to say what's what?"

Well, I'm about to enter a new job.  And I'm taking the job because he
is so good at what he does I want to study at his feet and learn all I
can from him.  I'm taking a pay cut to work there, so I'm not afraid of
being fired.

>You'll accept his right as a consequence of his economic power over you.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  He doesn't have economic power over me.  I
could get better-paying jobs elsewhere.

>The inference from the fact that someone
>makes a statement to an excess of will to power is invalid.

Ed.  Please understand.  We on the net don't consider you a
crypto-fascist because you post lots, but rather because of the
*content* of your postings.

>It is true
>that we all share a certain will-to-power; but it is unreasonable to
>suppose that a person with decided views for which he is ready to argue
>has any MORE will-to-power than the next man.

Again, Ed: I acknowledge my parochialism and check it with a strong
belief in the liberties of others, while I see no such restraint on your
part.

>Of the duo Stalin and Trotsky it was STALIN who was fairly inarticulate,
>who did not engage in debate, whereas it was Trotsky who had a minimal
>willingness to state positions and give reasons.  Using language
>often indicates the reverse of an excess of will-to-power.

Why this analogy?  Are you comparing me to either of those men?

>And the positions I am arguing for are not Nilgesian and they are
>unoriginal.

They may be unoriginal, but they certainly are Nilgesian.

>Feminists are the ones who are trying to demarcate an area
>of free speech that is less "speech" than systematic subordination of
>women, and blacks are trying to do the same with racially abusive
>speech.

Some feminists and some blacks.  You insult many with your
overgeneralizations, Ed.

>These views are underrepresented on the net, which is instead
>characterized by an excess of "speech" which is known to experienced
>users as disinformation (Carl Kadie's ridiculous assertions re Herb
>Marsacosa as a recent example.)

They're "underrepresented" because they have not fared well in the
marketplace of ideas on the net.  Sorry you're on the losing side, Ed.

>I believe that using my access to bring
>these non-Nilgesian views is a public service since it improves dialogue
>and may shed light on why the net is so abusive and disinformative.

I believe you are wrong.

marshall
-- 
=========== 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379 ===========
============ PGP 2.0 Public Key available by finger or request ============
===== c/o Jack Gelfand,Psych Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-2930 ======
= Original material(c) 1992, Marshall Flax <mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> =
Xref: sparky misc.legal:17924 talk.politics.theory:4404