Why phil

Kenny Mostern kennym at uclink2.berkeley.edu
Fri Apr 14 10:35:35 MDT 1995

> 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 ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list