 |
 |
Eric: Not sure what you are responding to in what I wrote. I was writing about the upcoming possibility of having a discussion online by the "two sides". I do not remember the words Campbell and Cohen used, but they could have been name calling as well. Not helpful. I was hoping that type of thing could be tamped down a bit in a online discussion/debate. I will let Cohen and Campbell speak about their science backgrounds and their views on leftist scientists. I still distrust the science establishment, although I would probably be labeled a member. Not sure what to do about that. Larry On 2/19/07 12:16 PM, "Eric Entemann" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I have to assume that Cohen and Campbell have little science background, > given some of their remarks. What is most disturbing is their lack of > respect, not for scientists in general, but leftist scientists. After all, > Science for the People was all about the justifiable distrust that leftist > scientists had toward the science establishment. > > And, if memory serves, it was Campbell that started the name-calling, not > that that justifies others doing the same. > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List > <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: The 9/11 conspiracy virus > Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:27:01 -0500 > > Michael: > > The last sentence is a bunch of pejorative labels, not analysis of anything. > They can be used by anyone from any political position attacking another > (except maybe infantile leftism). You wrote: > > ³But do I think their HIV denialism is a sign of clueless, knee-jerk, > stereotypical, infantile leftism on their part? Yes I do. That is a > political statement, or a political attack if you like.² > > As you wrote, they are feelings; to me feelings expressed as pejorative > labels. They are not political analysis or evidence. If you feel that way, > then what is the point of discussion? > > If I was in a discussion/debate with you and you made one or more of those > statements about me, I would know that all discussion was over. > > Personally, I recommend that you not participate in any such online > discussion/debate. > > Me, I am not so concerned about the number of posts. > > Larry > > > > > > On 2/19/07 5:14 AM, "Michael Balter" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Larry, since this is my second and last post of the day, I will use it to >> respond briefly to yours. >> >> I am not asking to reserve my right to make personal attacks on people, > but to >> engage in sharp political responses to folks such as Cohen and Campbell. > This >> may be interpreted by some as personal attacks, but I don't think they > are. >> For example, I would like to be able to argue not just the detailed > points >> about 9/11 conspiracies and HIV and HPV denial, which we have seen plenty > of >> recently on this list, but about the broader issues that concern me most: > The >> damage that this kind of flaky nonsense does to the left, its > credibility, and >> its ability to be persuasive to others. This might even extend to doing >> something you probably would not appreciate, which would be to criticize > WBAI >> and other Pacifica stations that spend a lot of air time on this kind of >> nonsense (especially 9/11) and thus limit their audiences to a fairly > small >> number of true believers in many cases (the audience for these stations > has >> not grown, and I think the wrong side won in the Pacifica wars. That is > not >> going to be popular with some people here, such as yourself, and it may > be >> taken as a personal attack, but it's not.) >> >> So while requests to keep the number of posts down seem reasonable to me, >> attempts to censor, inhibit, restrict, or otherwise limit political > expression >> seem unhealthy and unwise. I never said that Mitchel Cohen or Jonathan >> Campbell were ugly or stupid or had bad breath, because I have never met > them. >> Those would be personal attacks. But do I think their HIV denialism is a > sign >> of clueless, knee-jerk, stereotypical, infantile leftism on their part? > Yes I >> do. That is a political statement, or a political attack if you like. >> Perfectly legitimate. >> >> best, Michael >> >> On 2/19/07, Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> Michael: >>> >>> I doubt that the two sides in this potential debate will convince each >>> other‹at least immediately. The people you want to reach are those of > us who >>> are just reading (the email equivalent of listening quietly because we > may do >>> not know much). >>> >>> So, if you want to reach me, for example, appeals to authority will not > help >>> because I will probably not know who they are. Likewise, personal > attacks >>> will not help because I will not get the reasons for the personal > attack. In >>> that sense a personal attack is like raising your voice in an argument > to try >>> to convince the other person when they are not convinced by your more >>> measured presentation. >>> >>> However, I will understand discussion about a critique of the basic >>> assumptions behind the referenced paper, especially if I have time to > read >>> it. A critique of basic assumptions gets at the politics. Politics may > be >>> in part about polemics, but I will not be convince by polemics that are >>> without substance. It is, again, like raising your voice. >>> >>> I also know that sometimes words I write that I think are descriptive > others >>> feel are personal attacks. Tough to express feelings in a written > messages >>> to a diverse audience. >>> >>> Do not know if I am typical of the readers of this list, but that is my >>> perspective. >>> >>> I have participated in fierce email exchanges and I know how useless > they are >>> because the rest of the list appears to be using their delete keys. (If > they >>> do not participate, one is never quite sure.) >>> >>> Larry Romsted >>> >>> >>> On 2/19/07 12:36 AM, "Michael Balter" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> "that all comments regarding this particular discussion (the so-called >>>> "anti-science left") be restricted to valid critiques of the articles >>>> (scientific analysis) rather than broad-based attacks on the authors or >>>> their supporters." >>>> >>>> For the reasons I outlined in my post yesterday, I think that this >>>> particular restriction would basically take the politics out of > political >>>> discussions of science. In the example of 9/11 conspiracy theories, it > would >>>> require posters to disprove the theory point by point and could > disallow >>>> comment on the politics and psychology behind these theories; same with > HIV >>>> denialism. Politics is about polemics and analysis, and sometimes > broader >>>> interpretations--some would call them attacks--are necessary. >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> On 2/19/07, Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> George, >>>>> >>>>> I didn't pay enough attention to that aspect of Jose's proposal; > I >>>>> interpreted it as the people who comment would be doing so with the > intent >>>>> of critique of the article rather than the person who wrote it. That > is, >>>>> comments like "xxx is a known quack" would be disallowed as part of > the >>>>> discussion because it does not relate to the article at hand. But now > that >>>>> I look at the wording more carefully I agree with you, and I would > propose, >>>>> in substitution, that all comments regarding this particular > discussion >>>>> (the so-called "anti-science left") be restricted to valid critiques > of the >>>>> articles (scientific analysis) rather than broad-based attacks on the >>>>> authors or their supporters. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards >>>>> Jonathan >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> >>>>>> From: George Salzman <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> >>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:01 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: The 9/11 conspiracy virus >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi José, >>>>>> I realize you proposed some rules in an attempt to resolve >>>>>> disagreements. A priori not a bad idea, if the rules are not rigid. > One >>>>>> of the things you wrote is: " I say that we agree up front that the >>>>>> people who choose to participate speak for the whole list. Anyone > who >>>>>> disagrees, say so up front. No second guessers." >>>>>> To me that's unacceptable. Only I can speak for myself. And > whether >>>>>> or not others on the listserv answer you is irrelevant, because no > mature >>>>>> person can willingly surrender the right to speak for him/herself. >>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>> George >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more….then map the best route! > http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01