🚀 go-pugleaf

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>No one should act on my say-so. Any action should be based on a belief
>that something is wrong and should be taken within institutional
>guidelines.

Something is most *definitely* wrong, Carl. You just won't have
any of it.

>>Um, on just what date *are* we celebrating Krystalnacht this year?
>[...]
>The idea that publicizing censorship is the same as terrorizing Jews
>is despicable.

My, my, "despicable", is it?  Well, I'm truly wounded to the quick. :-)

Anyone who would attach the inflammatory word "BANNING" to any action
of mere university officials makes clear association with the current
tragedy in South Africa, and is thus hardly in a position to lay claim
to the high moral ground. Or to posture in indignation over indelicate
comparisons made by others.

So, now that the salutory pleasantries are out of the way, let's cut
directly to the chase, shall we.....

The fact that you cannot see the similarity of *tactic* -- not to be
confused with a similarity of *objective* -- perfectly validates the
criticisms you have drawn. You are, in fact, attempting to drum up
support for having others spread the word of your judgement against
actions of institutions that fail to measure up to your notion of
how the world should grind about on its moderately unstable axis.

That you will find others who agree with you is assured, and quite
beside the point. The point IS that there will be some who do *not*
agree with your absolutist, self-righteous pretense to some special
gift to judge other people -- people who may have taken their decisions
with perhaps no less devotion to higher moral principle than that
which you generously assign to yourself in taking yours. And with
batting averages that factually may be no worse than your own.

That you may disagree with those decisions is perfectly reasonable.
They are fit objects of debate by you or anyone else. Some of them
are probably terribly flawed. Maybe all. Maybe none. Not my point.

You aren't simply *debating* the merits or demerits of these thorny
decisions. Quite the contrary.

By pronouncing summary judgement, you thereby attempt to finesse an
appearance that debate has already *concluded* in favor of your own
pet notions.

It doesn't wash.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!