<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
I had hoped to stay out of this unfortunate morass. My response to
personally nasty people normally is to avoid interacting with them,
and this mostly works. But, it is apparent that there are
considerable political overtones to this 'morass' and I normally do
make the due political response to such political things.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 12 January 2013 05:37 AM,
McTim wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxjcKVFdCN7zB8Lh3Xg_RBw7H4raZ-oz5CN8WaA-4x=3Zw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<pre wrap=""><snip>
Riaz and Parminder and others throw around tags like "neo-liberal" and
"neo-con" and "American Exceptionalism" </pre>
</blockquote>
Although everything I say here applies to Riaz as well, I will speak
for myself especially because I am going to make specific claims and
challenge McTim to disprove them. <br>
<br>
The terms you mention. McTim, are very regularly used in
contemporary political literature. If we are to disallow these terms
from political discussions and discourse then we will have to ban
some of the best current political literature, especially coming
from the South. <br>
<br>
I use these terms only to refer to set of political views, and that
is how these are supposed to be used. I dont use them to label a
particular person. In addition, every time I use these terms I go
into considerable detail explaining their use. <br>
<br>
On a very very few occasions, I have indeed responded to the use of
specific political labels, with a counter-label.... Without
exception, and I repeat, <i>without exception</i>, every such usage
responds to a specific, personalised reference/ label made by
someone. (I understand that there could be considerable
sanctimonious advice by some that one can just ignore such labels,
but when in the middle of a political contestation there often is a
clear requirement - to be effective at what one is doing - not to
ignore such a labelling. I welcome a separate discussion on this
issue.) <br>
<br>
Having made these claims, McTim, since you have specifically used my
name to make an accusation,<i><b> I challenge you prove my above
claims wrong. And if you cannot, then do the gentlemanly thing
and withdraw your comments and apologize. </b></i><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxjcKVFdCN7zB8Lh3Xg_RBw7H4raZ-oz5CN8WaA-4x=3Zw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">where they do not apply.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Now, we can hardly go by McTim's judgement as to where terms like
neolib and American exceptionalism apply or dont apply. But, well,
you do seem to agree that there terms do apply to some kind of
views. That is encouraging. Well, let me repeat the act for what you
accuse me - I have not the least doubt that these terms - neolib, US
exceptionalism - strongly apply to some of the views routinely
presented on this list. And now that I have done it again, why dont
you seek that I be called for such an insolent behaviour. <br>
<br>
It would be apparent to everyone that the IGC elist is a site of
deep political contestations - which is not necessarily a bad thing
. The terms you refer to are central to some of the key political
contestations of current times. IF we ban them, then as Carlos says,
maybe we can discuss football and pop music on this list. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxjcKVFdCN7zB8Lh3Xg_RBw7H4raZ-oz5CN8WaA-4x=3Zw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> They
are insulting to those who they are aimed at, mostly becuase they are
wildly inaccurate.</pre>
</blockquote>
McTim, as above, you dont seem to be the best judge of the accuracy
of these terms at all, but I will take a chance - tell me what is
the accurate meaning / usage of these terms. It may help my
political learning. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxjcKVFdCN7zB8Lh3Xg_RBw7H4raZ-oz5CN8WaA-4x=3Zw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
They don't get called on it, but when SRS says "gleefully posting",
those words get him banned?</pre>
</blockquote>
Characterising political positions, in the middle of a political
discussion, with due elaborations, is not to be compared with what
has been routine, extra-ordinarily routine, spilling of personal and
personalised contempt on this list. No, it was not just the one
phrase 'gleefully posting' - which did in fact have no purpose in
the concerned email other than to express deep personal contempt<i>
</i>- that got your friend called for. And this was certainly not
the most contemptuous expression he has made, far from it. In fact
it falls quite below his normal standard. The concerned email just
capped a series of events that made the coordinator do what she
did. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxjcKVFdCN7zB8Lh3Xg_RBw7H4raZ-oz5CN8WaA-4x=3Zw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
That's the pattern.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>