Why phil -Reply

Lisa Rogers EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS at email.state.ut.us
Fri Apr 14 11:06:12 MDT 1995

Good ideas.  Of course I'd say that.

>>> Kenny Mostern <kennym at uclink2.berkeley.edu>  4/14/95, 10:35am >>>
>  > PS  > Dear Justin: if you may reply to Lisa, I would like you to
consider for  > example presenting your argument in the way Lisa has,
in some depth, with  > the quotations grouped at the end. I find I
really have a problem if text  > and commentary are spliced in and
out of each other often, as you  > sometimes do, and I just lose the
main argument, and merely pick up that  > two individuals seem to be
disagreeing with each other.  >  I was wondering whether I was the
only person who felt this way.  Indeed,  I worry that people often
don't believe I'm responding to them or  engaging in a responsible
dialogue because I tend to make my arguments  without responding
point by point to other people's posts.  In fact, I  find the
point/counterpoint style hard to read, that the posts which use  it
are far longer than they need to be, and that arguments are more
likely to go on at length, without getting to the fundamental grounds
of  the disagreement, when people are too interested in responding to
each  other's minutia.

This, obviously, is not an argument against quotation--this post
begins  with the quotation that set me writing.  But it is a plea to
quote only  once, or in a long post two or three times, and only to
quote the part of  someone's argument that you think gets to the root
of the disagreement.

Anyone else with an opinion on this?

Kenny Mostern
UC-Berkeley Ethnic Studies Graduate Group

Against:  racism, sexism, homophobia, capitalism, militarism
For:  the truth--and the funk!

     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list