"censoring" Jim, HA! I wish...

Lisa Rogers EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS at EMAIL.STATE.UT.US
Mon Jun 26 14:04:44 MDT 1995


>>> Jim Jaszewski <ab975 at main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>  6/23/95
... -- I was trying to figure a way not to let certain individuals
manipulate me into looking like an extremist -- ...
------------------------------

I really don't think you need much help in this area, Jim.  For
example, when you refer to "censors" when this list is entirely
unedited you can make yourself look as extreme as you like.  This
kind of constant polemic is not only boring, but has become
irritating.

So is your writing method of quote/response/quote/response for every
line in another's post.  The list had some discussion of this point
in or about March, but of course newcomers are not aware of this
history.  Perhaps it bears reminding, that this style is always
lengthy and repetitive, often polemical, hides some good nuggets in
pages of goo, hides the new post within the old, etc.  Posters
sometimes feel free to remind each other, politely, publicly.

Coming from Jim, I find this style personally even more irritating
because you had the gall to email me personally some time ago to
suggest that I reduce the amount of material that I quote.  Take some
of your own advice, why don't you, I actually agree with you on that
idea.

Especially since the list received a very sensible plea regarding
quoting and re-quoting from a list member who has to pay by the line
to receive all this stuff, I have been trying to be more careful
about that, as I hope we all would want to be.


At first, Jim, I thought you might be conscious of what you were
doing, and that you might be calculating and intending exactly the
kind of responses that you have received.  I thought this because I
have never seen a place where your bombastic, polemical, suspicious,
I-know-it-all-why-don't-you-all-agree-with-me style was popular or
preferred or non-controversial.

But from your recent interchange with Justin, I'm beginning to think
that you really don't know.  You really seemed bewildered by some of
our responses, and you obviously did not "get" Justin's points at
all.  And I thought Justin was seriously trying to reach out and
connect with you, but you wouldn't have any of it.

Instead, your response was self-contradictory and paranoid.

Please understand, when you flail about saying "that's not marxist"
that you are indeed acting like you are the one to say what's marxist
and what's not!!!

When you emailed me privately about two weeks ago, just to briefly
say "your posts are un-marxist", how the hell should I read that,
other than to say that you are the arbiter of what is marxist???  and
that you were taking it upon yourself to police the contents of the
list???  Can you recognize now that this is the kind of thing that
you do that comes across as bossy, at best, and unwelcome, to me, at
least?

Have you done this to anybody else, or is it just me, a poor
benighted female that needed your advice so badly??? [although I
didn't know it.]  (One could easily go on at some speculative length
about your true agenda, etc, but that is not my style or desire.)

And how about that marxist prayer?  At least one person privately
complimented me on that piece of work, enjoying the irreverence.
Well, that was my whole point, to point out the silliness of the very
idea of reverence, which your posts seemed to embody at the time.  I
guess it could have been replaced with a longer prose explication,
but I thought I could make the same point with a brief work of
fiction.  I guess you didn't get it.

When you act like you are the only true marxist around, and you are
out-raged that anyone would question the truth of diamat, for
example, you make yourself look like a "defender of the faith."  I
would be happy to hear an explanation of what you think diamat is,
what is so great about it, what are its implications for this or
that, etc.  Remember, some of us want to learn something, not just be
chastised for not knowing it [your way] already!

I hope this makes it more clear to you why you have been getting some
kinds of responses, especially from me, and likely from some others.
Any silence you receive may also be telling.

As for this post, you can call it censorship or ad hominem or
anything you like.  Just notice that you are indeed allowed to post
any damn thing you want, no matter how much anyone disapproves.
However, I do not have to read it.

Finally, please consider that I am actually trying to communicate
with you, I actually mean this stuff [perhaps in addition to any
hidden agenda? if I must have some], and I am even encouraging your
participation, although I'd like it to be constructive, [yes, of
course, by my definition].

I am also telling you that there are some things I cannot stomach.
Choosing who I want to read, that is a power that each of us has.
Given my limited time and brain-sweat, I must put your posts at a
rather low priority, if you continue as before.

Does that sound like a threat?  Only if you are paranoid, or maybe if
you care whether I read your posts or not, or if you will miss the
opportunity of trying to calmly explain your positions to me, or the
mental exercise of responding to my pointed, probing questions.

NOT JUST SLAMMING, MAN,
BUT CALLING IT LIKE I SEE IT,

Lisa Rogers





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

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list