dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 24 08:12:41 MDT 2003
You misunderstood one point and I misspoke one point.
First my mistake: I failed to include "on the list," in my encyclopedia of
use of the offending term. I saw that after I transmitted my message, but
thought it would be clear from the context what I was reffering to . I was
wrong about that. My apologies.
Second, your misunderstanding: Your initial post to the list wasn't answer
to my claims, but a question as to why I was still on the list. That I
believe is clearly what you were asking. I too have gone back and read the
posts. My "speculation" was as to why LP had not unsubbed me.
Agree, last comment.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craven, Jim" <jcraven at clark.edu>
To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: OFFLIST
> cde. Craven,
> I am writing this offlist because I do not think it should be pursued in
> I am well aware of the impact, import, and consequences of using that
> It is not a term I have ever used before, nor a term I ever want to use
> again. It is a throw down term, and I was throwing down for whatever ML
> the moderator wanted to do next.
> I also believe that ML engaged in deliberate distortion of my comments.
> has done this in the past, avoiding concrete issues, to distort, factually
> what I have said.
> I believe accusing me of heaping abuse on Stan Goff, when my comments were
> confined strictly to the slogan, I believe that accusing me of describing
> everyone in disagreement as arrogant and ignorant when I had clearly
> no such thing, was also throw down.
> I apologize to you and anybody else offended by such language. However it
> was not without its specific context. If LP wishes to unsub me, that is
> If ML wishes to lie about me, it is not.
> Dear dms,
> Please look at your statement in the second paragraph: "It is not a term I
> have ever used before, nor a term I ever want to use again." Now what if I
> called you a "motherfucking liar" because, by your own account, you have
> used that term at least once before with that guy from the railroad? Of
> course I do not believe you are a liar, you simply misspoke--at most; and
> may "believe" you have indeed used that term more than once before (I have
> in extreme anger) but I do not "know" that for a fact; nor do I "know"
> state of mind in terms of "knowing" that you knowingly told an untruth
> you knew well to be an untruth. In the case of the railroad guy, I assume
> actually "knew" he was telling a lie and that you were indeed somewhere
> than where he claimed you were in which case that would be a clear case of
> When it comes to some opinions, about whether or not you supposedly
> Stan Goff, well that it more dicey in that one person's opinion of what
> constitutes an "attack" may be different in which case Lause may well have
> written something you know to be untrue, and even many might agree that
> he wrote was untrue, but that is still a different matter and level from
> showing he intentionally lied--actually wrote a lie he knew to be a
> opposed to a difference in opinion and definition as to what constitutes
> I am a Blackfoot Indian and a Marxist. I see enough eurocentric and
> shit about Indians on some progressive lists to make my blood boil (that
> when someone gets around to discussing genocide against Indigenous Peoples
> and critical issues of Indigenous Peoples about which most white academics
> and white activists know little or nothing). But I am careful not to call
> someone a racist even if they are advancing a view I know or believe to be
> objectively racist because calling them a racist (as opposed to
> or just plain ignorant) is a statement about and a claim to "knowing" what
> is in their heart and mind and what they actually intended.
> That is my point only. Yet you "hazarded to speculate", not knowing
> about me, that I was answering your claims and vitriol about Mark Lause
> because your comments about his alleged "dissembling" were correct. So now
> you "know" what was in my mind and what I intended with my response?
> You see the point?
> Last comment.
> Jim C.
More information about the Marxism