Hank: I want to say that I like you, Lark. You seem like an interesting cat, and I enjoy a lot of your posts. But a very high percentage of them look like this one, which is a childish embarrassment to the Left.
Lark: What left? Your speaking as though the left is you and your buddies it isnt, if I'm an embarrasment to you then fine but dont pretend your the 'the left'.
I disagree with your comments on homosexuality which you've making, defending, restating, refining for several months now. I said a high percentange. Not all of them.
Hank: You should start doing more thinking before you post, Lark, especially in your spats with Stoller. He's been wiping the floor with you lately.
Lark: Surprise, surprise a pan-strollerist.
Hank: I've gone at it with Stoller, so what? I'm rooting for the anarchist position, Lark. I'm all for maximum social power, minimum or zero coercion. But I must say that from ringside, round after round has gone to Stoller. So far all you've done is call the Bolsheviks murderous and call Stoller a non-person. You've only succeeded in raising up a moral banner condemning murder. Who can't do that? Who WOULDN'T do that?
Lark: Are my posts aggrivating because I have no aspiration to pretensious psuedo-intellectualism or snobbery? Or because I dont put out the same things time and again like some machine or jesuit quoting his favourite biblical quote
This isn't a real question. It looks like a question, but it's not a straight one so I can't answer it straight. Are these yes/no questions or is this one multiple choice?
With this "question" you're not soliciting the reasons as to why I found your post aggravating, rather you're staking out a position, the position being that you're a straight-talker, a shooter-from-the-hip, and most of all you (unlike Stoller) are not wedded to any particular belief system. You're a "trial and error" socialist who doesn't give a shit about dialectics or class divisions or anything. You're just mad as hell and you ain't gonna take it anymore.
Leaving aside that your non-weddedness stance is a belief system in itself, I would like to remind you that I didn't say ALL your posts aren't aggravating, just the one you wrote to Frenchy. He asked a question which was pretty much "so why do people come to America?" and you said "because they're dumb" and went on from there. Eschewing even redimentary analysis of an important fact (i.e. that America is a deeply indoctrinated country) you chose to skip a very important line of discussion and were satisfied to call 260 million people "dumb."
This plays precisely into Frenchy's conception that Leftists are a bunch of whining, knee-jerk malcontents. If he were to respond by calling you a bigot, I'd agree with him.
Lark: Let's make it clear, I dont want to fall out over this and I havent tried to be agressive or malicious in this post but I'm not going to temper my views with the kind of convention and 'form' that some people would, like, alright I see no reason for out right malicious behaviour or getting to heated but I dont think this is an academic or British conservative elite club either.
Calling Americans dumb played perfectly into Frenchy's belief that Leftists are a bunch of whining, knee-jerk malcontents. I objected to it because you missed a chance to set Frenchy straight on an important point, namely the form and function of American education.
Your bit with Stoller bit is fine. It's silly that you called me a Stollerist, because if you should know that I have plenty of differences with him and Skinner and Behaviorism. And I have political and rhetorical differences as well . But not one of my issues with Stoller has anything to do with the fact that he makes the effort to substantiate his views with notes and references.
And you're right, this is not a conservative British elite debate club. Um, why is this important?