a letter from someone which needs DECONSTRUCTING

[Jon Ford]

Mike: Maybe Don's letter  touched a nerve! You like to criticize people for 
"scatter-brained logic,"  making constant references to "the brain of Roger 
"as if he, who I would suspect is about four times more intelligent than 
most of the people on this list, is some kind of a misguided moron.  Your 
repeated "logical"  call to arms in previous posts is  something like "kill 
all the Arab rag-head bastards." Further, you end your "anti-fallacious" 
response to Laird by refering to a personal desire to unsubsribe from the 
list anyone who disagrees of your pro-war views--now that's scary, an appeal 
to fear if there ever was one!. I thought this was an open forum of ideas.

Now, I have to admit It's kind of fun lobbing grenades at one another, but 
maybe we should think before we toss em.  There is nothing inherently wrong 
with Don's cautionary  post, although if he made a historical mistake, it's 
fine to let him know-- but let's try a little civility. I apologize to all 
for my own recent rudeness--my daughter was in a serious car-wreck  with a 
concussion  three or four  days ago, and I have been upset by this as well 
as by the war. Everybody has a right to their perspective around here.

Jon

Jon


>From: Michael Eisenstadt <michaele@ando.pair.com>
>To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
>Subject: a letter from someone which needs DECONSTRUCTING
>Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:08:06 -0500
>
>someone wrote:
>
> > There are some problems with the above excerpted phrases.  First, "the 
>PR
> > heat."  The public relations industry, founded and developed in the 
>U.S., is
> > an industry focused on persuasion, self-serving goals, and deceit.  The 
>PR
> > industry does not attack the U.S. - it tends to promote the U.S., as 
>when
> > Edward Bernays helped the U.S. deceive the American public about the 
>U.S.
> > overthrow of Guatemala's democratically-elected government.
>
>Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud was an alter cacker who
>invented public relations to sell consumer goods such as
>soap and cigarettes. His heyday was in the teens and 1920s
>so he had nothing to do with CIA in Guatemala in the 1960s
>as he was retired by then. He was born in 1891.
>
>The angry rhetoric of the quoted paragraph makes Roger's rantings
>seem almost reasonable. And its scatterbrain logic of the rest
>of the letter suggests that its author is a crank who far
>exceeds OUR crank (I mean Roger of course) in crankiness.
>How many cranks does one maillist need?
>
>Isnt this the same subscriber who was bragging on his stock
>market gains when he got subscribed and then threatened
>legal action because he had convinced himself that I was
>dicking with the computers in his home?
>
>As far as I know preemptive unsubscription is above my
>pay grade. But you never know. I'll look into it as it
>may be covered in some subsection or other of Rule 22.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > "USA haters."   To cite negative facts about or to criticize one's
> > government is not to demonstrate hatred for one's government.  Such an
> > emotion-based phrase seems to reflect an emotional intolerance for 
>freedom
> > of speech, combined with a generalized attack on a select group of 
>people.
> > The phrase seems to demonize its target.
> >
> > "critics want to bitch."  Another example of an emotion-laden phrase.  
>Note
> > how this phrase, like the previous examples, is general rather than
> > specific.  It also projects desires to the general group, the group that
> > "wants to."
> >
> > Finally, the personal references.  While the names are specific, their
> > nature or condition is rather general.  I'd imagine the implications are
> > negative.  Unfortunately, I can't see any relevance of Zen or 
>millionaire
> > status to the rest of the message.  Its best characterization may 
>already
> > have been made:  grumpy.
> >
> >                                            
>---------------------------------
> > ----------------------------
> > The topic of the Taliban doing nothing wrong in harboring bin Laden and 
>his
> > training camps reminds me of history, the history of piracy.   While 
>piracy
> > is an international crime and is not governmentally-authorized robbery 
>and
> > killing, profiteering is.  Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress could 
>issue
> > "letters of marque" and therefore make use of privateers during wartime.
> > That is, pirates who preyed on the civilian and military-related 
>commerce of
> > the enemy.  Privateering was carried on during the American Revolution, 
>the
> > War of 1812, and by the confederacy during the Civil War.  The U.S., 
>having
> > failed to support the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which abolished
> > privateering, renounced privateering during the Spanish-American War.
> >
> > Since the privateers were similar to terrorists and engaged in "crimes
> > against humanity," we can consider whether or not it would be 
>appropriate to
> > characterize the U.S. as harboring terrorists during that era.
> >
> > The piracy of Jean LaFitte eventually allowed him to fight under General
> > Andrew Jackson.  After that war (of 1812), LaFitte moved to Galveston 
>and
> > returned to piracy.  He remained there with his 1000 followers for 
>years,
> > unmolested, until he attacked an American merchant vessel.  LaFitte was
> > allowed to leave peacefully.
> >
> > Don
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp