Is there a pattern here?
Roger Baker
rcbaker@eden.infohwy.com
Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:04:49 -0800
--Apple-Mail-1--659681139
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Being on this list and submitting anything with much intellectual
traction
(like Noam Chomsky for example) makes one subject to being called a
crank,
unscientific, chickenshit, a ranter, bogus , in bad faith, alienated,
unobjective,
in favor of the destruction of Israel, and even a potential target of
physical
abuse by herr listmaster -- as these recent verbatim Eisenstat quotes
indicate.
And these are merely from the last several months. (I challenge anyone to
find anything of comparable venomousness aimed by myself at Mike).
I think anyone who expresses an important opinion on this list that does
not
pass Mike's criteria for political correctness has to be prepared to
put up with such hotheaded commentary, modulated by lapses of calm
reasonableness and even hard won praise from Mike. Despite all this,
there are clear but subtle indications that at some level Mike actually
likes
or at least respects me. On a good day.
-- Roger
***************************************
...The angry rhetoric of the quoted paragraph makes Roger's rantings
seem almost reasonable. And its scatterbrain logic of the rest
of the letter suggests that its author is a crank who far
exceeds OUR crank (I mean Roger of course) in crankiness.
How many cranks does one maillist need?...
ME -- Oct.23
...My point exactly. There is a difference between OUR cranks
and unknown cranks. OURS are fuzzy and lovable (I am thinking
of Roger and Tary). The others are not. I 4 1 do not enjoy
seeing angry rhetoric in my Inbox from strangers about how
evil and guilty America and Americans are...
ME -- Oct. 24
...Roger up to now our chief ranter, who IS
one of us, has learnt to paste in URLs
when he wants to make a point...
ME -- Oct. 26
...Your "maybe..." remark is facetious and not serious, as modern
military action is incompatible with one on one jousting
like in the Middle Ages. I think your self-proclaimed
humanitarianism is totally bogus and in bad faith.
We will just have to agree to disagree. My starting point is
that there are just wars -- 2 examples (for the non-Rogers)
would be WW II and the recent Kosovo intervention. There are
many others.
Your view that we should NOT have reacted to 9-11 is thankfully
confined to the ranks of those like yourself whose main focus of
life it is to protest, being otherwise disassociated and
alienated from normal pursuits....
ME -- Oct 28
...Roger, you really ought to quit claiming thousands of innocents
killed until afterwards (hoping there IS an afterwards), when
an honest accounting may become possible. The numbers really do
count. The 38xx missing and 48x identified dead of 9-11 are accurate
numbers. Get the numbers straight, you as an amateur scientist
should be able to rise to this degree of objectivity...
ME -- Nov 7
...I would ask Chomsky at this point to guess-timate
the enormous human toll. We know of 1 death, that
of the night watchman. Is he suggesting 10, 100,
1000, 10,000? Like Roger, Chomsky's rhetoric is
unscientific because he wont specify a guess-timated
number....
ME -- Nov 16
...Roger Baker sent 2 paragraphs and 2 Web page pointers.
Stylistically it is not clear who wrote these 2 paragraphs.
Did you, Roger, write them or did you paste them in from
somewhere else? Please advise.
As for the 2 pointers, one of them is broken. The other
is to an article by a Robert Fisk who wishes the Jews
in Israel to be driven out and the land to be reclaimed
by Arabs. Is that your view as well, Roger? Remind me to
bring this issue up the next time we meet face to face...
ME -- Dec 4
...Your post this morning asked what I was getting
at in expressing the hope of running into you
soon. Your ear is excellent. I had written "I
feel like knocking your teeth down your throat"
but then I deleted it...
ME -- Dec 5
...Is Roger in favor of the destruction of Israel as Robert Fisk
is?
I should point out that Robert Fisk is not prepared to
to admit openly that he is in the favor of destroying
Israel. Identifying Israel with France's colonial regime in
Algeria (1840-1960) is his way of saying the unsayable:
the jews like the French from Algeria must leave Israel
or die. That is now the position of many or most
Palestinian Arabs. Is that your view too, Roger? Now
that you have your English prosody precisely tuned,
be a man and speak in your voice. In favor of the
destruction of Israel or not?...
ME -- Dec 5
Of course I am not in favor of the destruction of Israel.
Roger,
Thank you for saying so. Now that you have learnt
to write so elegantly I would humbly suggest you
look a little more closely at other folks' writings
that you have been forwarding to us. When you paste
in remarks that slyly argue for the destruction of
Israel, please don't be surprised that I take umbrage.
Fisk's language about Israelis and the Israeli army
that you chose to forward were dishonest and
disgusting.
ME -- Dec 5
--Apple-Mail-1--659681139
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
charset=US-ASCII
Being on this list and submitting anything with much intellectual
traction
(like Noam Chomsky for example) makes one subject to being called a
crank,
unscientific, chickenshit, a ranter, bogus , in bad faith, alienated,
unobjective,
in favor of the destruction of Israel, and even a potential target of
physical
abuse by herr listmaster -- as these recent verbatim Eisenstat
quotes indicate.
And these are merely from the last several months. (I challenge anyone
to
find anything of comparable venomousness aimed by myself at Mike).
I think anyone who expresses an important opinion on this list that
does not
pass Mike's criteria for political correctness has to be prepared to
put up with such hotheaded commentary, modulated by lapses of calm
reasonableness and even hard won praise from Mike. Despite all this,
there are clear but subtle indications that at some level Mike
actually likes
or at least respects me. On a good day.
-- Roger
***************************************
...The angry rhetoric of the quoted paragraph makes Roger's rantings
seem almost reasonable. And its scatterbrain logic of the rest
of the letter suggests that its author is a crank who far
exceeds OUR crank (I mean Roger of course) in crankiness.
How many cranks does one maillist need?...
ME -- Oct.23
...My point exactly. There is a difference between OUR cranks
and unknown cranks. OURS are fuzzy and lovable (I am thinking
of Roger and Tary). The others are not. I 4 1 do not enjoy
seeing angry rhetoric in my Inbox from strangers about how
evil and guilty America and Americans are...
ME -- Oct. 24
...Roger up to now our chief ranter, who IS
one of us, has learnt to paste in URLs
when he wants to make a point...
ME -- Oct. 26
...Your "maybe..." remark is facetious and not serious, as modern
military action is incompatible with one on one jousting
like in the Middle Ages. I think your self-proclaimed
humanitarianism is totally bogus and in bad faith.
We will just have to agree to disagree. My starting point is
that there are just wars -- 2 examples (for the non-Rogers)
would be WW II and the recent Kosovo intervention. There are
many others.
Your view that we should NOT have reacted to 9-11 is thankfully
confined to the ranks of those like yourself whose main focus of
life it is to protest, being otherwise disassociated and
alienated from normal pursuits....
ME -- Oct 28
...Roger, you really ought to quit claiming thousands of innocents
killed until afterwards (hoping there IS an afterwards), when
an honest accounting may become possible. The numbers really do
count. The 38xx missing and 48x identified dead of 9-11 are accurate
numbers. Get the numbers straight, you as an amateur scientist
should be able to rise to this degree of objectivity...
ME -- Nov 7
...I would ask Chomsky at this point to guess-timate
the enormous human toll. We know of 1 death, that
of the night watchman. Is he suggesting 10, 100,
1000, 10,000? Like Roger, Chomsky's rhetoric is
unscientific because he wont specify a guess-timated
number....
ME -- Nov 16
...Roger Baker sent 2 paragraphs and 2 Web page pointers.
Stylistically it is not clear who wrote these 2 paragraphs.
Did you, Roger, write them or did you paste them in from
somewhere else? Please advise.
As for the 2 pointers, one of them is broken. The other
is to an article by a Robert Fisk who wishes the Jews
in Israel to be driven out and the land to be reclaimed
by Arabs. Is that your view as well, Roger? Remind me to
bring this issue up the next time we meet face to face...
ME -- Dec 4
...Your post this morning asked what I was getting
at in expressing the hope of running into you
soon. Your ear is excellent. I had written "I
feel like knocking your teeth down your throat"
but then I deleted it...
ME -- Dec 5
...Is Roger in favor of the destruction of Israel as Robert Fisk
is?
I should point out that Robert Fisk is not prepared to
to admit openly that he is in the favor of destroying
Israel. Identifying Israel with France's colonial regime in
Algeria (1840-1960) is his way of saying the unsayable:
the jews like the French from Algeria must leave Israel
or die. That is now the position of many or most
Palestinian Arabs. Is that your view too, Roger? Now
that you have your English prosody precisely tuned,
be a man and speak in your voice. In favor of the
destruction of Israel or not?...
ME -- Dec 5
<color><param>0000,0000,DEDE</param>Of course I am not in favor of the
destruction of Israel.
</color>
Roger,
Thank you for saying so. Now that you have learnt
to write so elegantly I would humbly suggest you
look a little more closely at other folks' writings
that you have been forwarding to us. When you paste
in remarks that slyly argue for the destruction of
Israel, please don't be surprised that I take umbrage.
Fisk's language about Israelis and the Israeli army
that you chose to forward were dishonest and
disgusting.
ME -- Dec 5
--Apple-Mail-1--659681139--