I was at OLA yesterday for seven and a half hours. I stayed until about 9:30 pm and had to leave, but up to that time I would estimate there were well over 2,000 people on site, with roughly 80% or more of the people being in their twenties. The police helicopters (“pigs can fly”) circled regularly overhead, shining their very bright search beams down on us, trying, no doubt, to gauge the number of people and the overall mood. The fact that so many came out to defend the occupation undoubtedly led to the Major and LAPD deciding that they would let the deadline of Sunday midnight pass. A victory for the movement! As one speaker put it during the General Assembly, Mayor Villaraigosa welcomed us on October 1 with open arms and the City Council joined with us in support a few weeks later, but now, on November 27, we're "criminals."
Some observations: what people who have not come to the occupations and/or who have not been closely watching what’s going on in don’t fully appreciate is how far this movement has come in several weeks and what exactly is going on. There is a gulf between the people who have been actively involved in the movement and those who are still on the outside of it. I spoke to a mediator who has been attending and assisting at OLA for several weeks, and she independently observed that the changes that people have been going through in OLA (and we can safely say this is true of the Occupy Movement as a whole) are not really understood by most by-standers. She described the atmosphere at the camp as being “palpably electric.” She told me that she’d heard there was an Occupy in Sierra Leone. “Sierra Leone!” she exclaimed.
As I sat on the hill on the grass facing the center of the General Assembly in the dark evening and listened to the speakers and participated in the occasional “mic checks,” I thought to myself, “This is going to be one of the things that people do that they will look back on years from now and say, ‘This is one of the best things I ever did in my life, and it is one of the best times I ever had in my life.’”
One of my thoughts about this was that we should be patient with this movement and give it the time and space to develop and we should also be impatient with the movement and help to push it to rising to its highest potential. By itself it is a tremendous, life affirming, incredible movement, but it also needs to find its way forward and answer some very knotty questions. What is the real source of the problem – is it crony capitalism and too much money in politics and can we “get back to our democracy,” or is it something more fundamental than corporations being too powerful and the problem capitalism itself, with “democracy” never being what people think that it was? How do we deal with the question of leadership?
I had some really interesting conversations with folks, which hopefully I’ll have time to write about, but I have to leave it at this short post for now. If you haven’t attended an occupation or occupy action, you should go. You cannot appreciate what is going on unless you do. Young people and not so young people have created liberated zones – holding onto a public presence is a very important thing for the movement – and the kind of schooling that is going on in their ranks and how they are schooling the rest of the society is outstanding. This movement is countering the vicious dog-eat-dog mentality and value system of the neoliberal nightmare as people seek an alternative to this madness.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Watching Frogs Boil
Karen McKim
Erica K
Jennifer Prestholdt
Julie Morse
Salon.com
Comments
Well, that's not going to happen. The protesters will be gradually evicted and forced to 'grow up' and work for their ideas of positive societal change by organizing politically for victories at the ballot box. Any other way is fundamentally anti-democratic.
I find it fascinating that people think that direct democratic involvement such as protests and occupations are antithetical to "democracy" and that what is truly democratic is the electoral and lobbying process.
There isn't anything more democratic than citizen grassroots actions. What is more democratic than people acting directly in the streets and in various fora? What is more democratic than the people acting on behalf of their views and advocating in person?
This is an example of the point I was making in my post: there is a very big gulf in the country between those who are in and supportive of the OM and those who are opposed to it and don't get what this is about. It's not really a question of ignorance/knowledge. It's a question of a fundamental difference of values and perspective. The reason why the OM has caught fire is because a critical mass of people have recognized that the conventional route to political influence is hopelessly mired in a rigged game. This is what I analyze at some length in my book, especially in Chapter Five. Even under the best of circumstances, representative democracy (even if we actually had that, which we clearly don't since public officials are bought and paid for by the PTB) would never be actual democracy. And I am not referring to the difference between representative republics or representative democracies and direct democracy. I'm making a much more fundamental point about whether the people's will is actually being exercised and what the contradictions are that exist in real ways in society between those who are privileged and those who are not in so many dimensions. See my book for more on this.
I'm glad that the people in the OM have not "grown up" into believing in what those who think that what the occupiers are doing is jejune. Because then we would truly then be lost...
Faye and ONL: Great to hear from you, and yes, it is really inspiring.
Whether I'm in favor of a civil war or not isn't actually the way I would put the question. The civil war is already underway and has been going on for quite some time, and in an acute form over the last thirty years, reaching a crescendo of sorts with the Citizens United Decision which opened the floodgates to the covert (yet rather open at the same time) use of the electoral process by domestic and foreign corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money. The stage at which this civil war, which has been all one sided until now, turns into the open use of force by both sides is indeterminate. I say indeterminate for two reasons. One, because it really is unknown when and if it will become two sided in the use of force. Two, because it is wholly appropriate for the occupy movement to be explicitly non-violent.
At the same time, as a student of history, of sociology, of politics, and of social movements, no movements including the current one in Egypt are wholly non-violent. Force is a part of the fabric of politics and will be so as long as the division of the resources of the society are substantially unequal and unfair. You can no sooner separate force from politics than you can separate war from politics, as Clausewitz repeatedly emphasized when he made the point that war is the continuation of politics, by other, violent, means.
One side has been using force so far and interestingly enough when Tea Partiers openly carry weapons, state openly that they plan to use guns and are preparing for a civil war, and have been gunning down people like abortion providers and Democrats like Gabrielle Giffords, very few people talk about a civil war being waged. But when thousands and thousands act explicitly non-violently to turn this into a two sided fight, then violence is used against them and the occupiers are vilified by authorities and right-wingers.
To put this point succinctly: as long as you have a terribly lopsided economic system, you cannot possibly have a fair political system. To think that you can is to be hopelessly out of touch with reality and with history.
"Does the advice we get on health care over the mainstream media give us enough scope, depth and detail to allow us to treat ourselves and be our own physicians? Certainly not. Why would political advice dispensed via mainstream media and existing governmental institutions be any better? Is it reasonable to expect that reliance upon the major parties’ campaign pitches and the injunction 'just vote' could possibly be all you need to know to change society? The richest 497 individuals in the world have more wealth than the bottom fifty percent of the world’s population. If you had such extreme wealth and power and enjoyed your luxuries more than justice, would you let your possessions be subject to the whims of the principle of 'one person, one vote?' Would you let your extraordinary wealth be outvoted? You would be crazy to do so."
You say: "The people would have suffered the disruptions of a violent change, a revolution, merely to be exploited by a new set of masters."
Is it your opinion that this describes the American Revolution?
In today's circumstances it is up to the exponents for revolution to make their case. I seriously such the exponents will be able to attract more than a tiny minority who, if they engage in violent activity, will be repressed by the present security apparatus. The overwhelming majority of the onlookers of such a process, the public in other words, will not join in violent activity. They will organize themselves for electoral contests.
If you are going to be consistent in your assertion that any revolution is not worth it, as you initially claimed, then be consistent. What you're really saying is that you think that the status quo now is much better than any alternative to it.
Let's for the moment take my views out of the picture (and yours) and just consider the others in the OM. This again was a key point in my post: the people who are in and close to the OM understand and are moving on sentiments and understandings that are not being properly understood and appreciated by others. This gap is going to be bridged to a significant extent eventually, by the way, if the movement is not crushed. And I don't think it is likely, by the way, for reasons that I have elaborated upon before in other posts especially, that the movement can be crushed permanently.
If we're going to be scientific and objective about this and consider this from the standpoint of social scientists, then we have to try to get as best as we can inside the heads of those who are in the movement that we're studying and not import things that are our own preconceptions and preferences. If you do that, and you really listen to and pay attention to what the people active in this movement are saying, then you will see that which you are not seeing now because you are disposed against that view. That is your prerogative to have your views and I certainly wouldn't try to convince you that you don't have that right. But there is a difference between the fact that everyone is entitled to their opinion and what the social evidence indicates. The evidence is very strong in favor of the conclusions that I have advanced and there is quite a lot of data available for someone to go through and study. If you do that you will find that you will come to conclusions different from the ones you are advancing now.
I have disagreed with you and jejune both in the past. In this case I think he has asked you some pretty important questions that you have avoided dealing with.
If, as you say, the present electoral system has been co-opted by forces inimical to the interests of the majority - you and jejune seem to agree on that, as do I - then just how should the country be managed? And by whom? And how will those who take on this job be chosen?
Should, as jejune asked, "the mob", i.e. the "occupiers" simply declare their chosen few the new government? And if they did that, are those they'd put in the seats of government qualified to manage the nation? When does the rest of the people get to have some representation and input through that representation?
Sending a commenter to "read up on" whatever you've decided they ought to read up on - especially flogging your own book - is a cop-out. Why not answer the questions asked if you have, as you imply that you do, the answers that they'd find if they did go and read your recommended reading list.
Basically you are arrogantly claiming that you "have more knowledge than the commenter" but that you need not answer their questions because "they should read your book".
I think that you probably DO understand much that jejune does not but that does not give you the right to ignore his legitimate questions - questions that I suspect you can easily answer. Questions, in fact, that many people would love to hear your answer to. Since you presented this blog for the consideration of those here who read you, I'd think you owe them the courtesy of answers to their questions here where they are reading you and are asking you for your answers. Or are you just here to flog your book?
And, yes, that means answering the questions of "right wing concrete heads" (my designation) also.
.
The reason some of us write books is because we can spend the time and space discussing and analyzing questions that one can't do in shorter venues. This is all the more the case when the issues you're attempting to address in the book are ones that are conventionally understood in a very different way than what you are laying out in the book. This is the back and forth that you and I had in prior posts in which I urged you to go to my book - which you have in your possession - and read what I've written to get the full argument. You call that flogging my book. You also said previously that you were annoyed that I cited the works of many other people in the course of my book and you wanted to hear what I think. As I pointed out to you then and I will repeat here, a) even if someone was trying to conceal what they personally think (which I am not and don't do), one could still figure out what someone thinks by what they say and how they say it, even if it involves drawing upon other people's work, and b) scholars build upon what others have done because we regard knowledge, and rightly so, as a social and historical product, not that of some individual genius.
Having said all of that, I will try to address your objections in your latest comment:
By the way, if you have read what else I have been posting here at OS on the OM you'd see that in fact I have spoken to these questions that you claim that I have been avoiding or pulling rank on others about.
As to the question of the OM being a "mob:" what divides you and I and Jejune and I on this question and on related questions is that you both appear to believe that the decisive arena politically are the existing institutions of government. If you study history (as I have previously written including in this thread and as I elaborate upon with historical examples and extensive data in my book) and if you study politics, and if you have an open mind to learning what the evidence indicates, you will discover that the sources of political power are not the obvious institutions of politics but a monopoly over the legitimate means of violence (as Max Weber put it). Disaggregated what Weber is observing is that political power has two elements: the use of coercion and the mantle of legitimacy. Put another way, political power is persuasion and coercion.
This is what the OM is challenging - the legitimacy of authorities to govern in the interests that they are serving and in the manner in which they are doing it.
This is the key point that if you don't see, then the rest of it just becomes a dispute without possibility of resolution.
You want to know how things will be governed in a specific sense. OK, I will answer that, but I need to point out that this isn't really the important question here with respect to the OM. As Charles De Gaulle famously said (citing the original person you said it) during May 1968: "Apres moi le deluge." Governing bodies have always called themselves the source of order and those who would challenge them a mob.
First, the people in the OM have been demonstrating how they would run society in the way they are governing themselves in the camps.
Second, I don't think the apparatus of government's been hijacked. Government only exists when there is a highly unequal division of social resources and they exist as an apparatus not to referee or represent different interests but as a device to exercise class rule by the dominant class.
Third, the way that I think society should be governed would not be taking over the existing apparatus of government (another question I get into in my book as to why) but by developing organs of popular rule that would look something like this - universities, for example, would have as its operational, day to day leadership, a committee of equals of faculty reps, administrative reps, students and staff reps. The major decisions would be arrived at through true discussion and debate and consensus building in a body of the whole in various forms that could be developed. This is the basic model that could be used for every arena in the society.
For reasons which I go into in MY BOOK (there I go again, flogging my book), bureaucracies operate in a particular fashion. They tend to be secretive and turf jealous and they have a number of other features to them that are problematic. Yet no one can govern large groups of people without some kind of division of labor and responsibilities. There are ways that bureaucracies can be curbed and ultimately transformed which have to do with applying the principles that I have EXTREMELY briefly referred to above (most implicitly) and that involve overall the matter of the leadership of the society being of a certain kind - one whose mission is not to feather their own nests but to bridge the differences that exist between those who do mental versus those who do manual labor, between the center and periphery, between men and women, etc. How do you maintain that kind of leadership? You can't do it by writing laws primarily, although good laws and regulations are very important and helpful and one of them would be paying public officials the same as the average worker so that public service doesn't contain an incentive to get rich. Mainly it is a question of people participating in real decision making and discussions on a local and societal level. That is one of the hallmarks of the OM that they are doing this kind of thing and that is why what they represent in embryo what a radically different society might and could look like.
I could write a book in answer to your response to my comment.
Firstly: I understans quite well why you've written a book. Although you've taken cheap shots at my level of education, please understand that I can actually read without moving my lips when pressed hard to do so.
You have made certain assumptions about my "beliefs" that are unwarranted. The fact that I have pressed you to answer jejune's questions - which seem to stem from a certain point of view - should not lead you to conclude that I share his point of view; something which you'd already be aware of had you read any of MY writings, here on OS, about such matters. I recommend "Thinking Of The Future" - Vol. I - V or any of the other short essays that I've posted.
Had you perused my writing as you expect me, and others, to peruse yours, you'd not be making such errors in your assumptions as to what my attitudes and positions are. I suggest that I'm a great deal closer to your way of thinking than you might suspect. Unfortunately you've chosen to assume that any questions I have or clarifications I ask for imply disagreement with your ideas.
To be sure, I do not agree with all that you write. I would laugh you to scorn over your notion that the OM has established a model of any sort for the proper organization of a whole society. This business of "consensus" as a means of decision-making has been the backbone of anarchistic thinking for a very long time. It may work well in groups of relatively small numbers but I doubt its ability to be effective as a means of organizing a nation of millions and hundreds of millions of citizens.
Yet while disagreeing with you on some few of your ideas, I am overjoyed that you are thinking outside the box in terms of social organization. There is little doubt that our present system, whatever its usefulness in the past, has become more of an enemy to the population of the nations where it exists than a friend. Some blame the individuals who have profited by this system; I do not. The system itself would have "brought forward" some individuals who benefit greatly from this pyramid of power/wealth upon which this system is based. Who those individuals are is of little importance.
What is of importance is that, once in that position of wealth and power, those individuals, as one might expect, will bend every effort to remain in those positions and even to increase their wealth and power. The system demands this of them and they comply. Honesty, morality, ethics all take a back seat to survival. Those in powerful, wealthy positions see themselves as "good people who played the game as it is laid out", and who succeeded. They also see themselves as being "under attack" by those who have not succeeded in like manner.
I do not see that replacing those individuals in the apex of that pyramid of power is of any use. I am of the opinion that for a society to achieve any real measure of democracy and egalitarianism it must move away from vertical systems of authority and power and develop horizontal systems that include all citizens in the responsibility for the management of the society. I suspect that you would agree.
I suspect that your vision of how society ought to operate is much different than mine. Yet I would love to see many discussions around ANY alternate system than see the blind conformity that exists at present amongst our population, especially one like yours which is radically different. Radical is where it's at! That I question you so closely is not something you should shrug off. I'm asking the questions that come to mind in many people when they read you blogs. I'm sorry that you think that we should all "just go and read your book". I think that when you raise an issue HERE on OS, you should be prepared to answer questions about it HERE on OS. Anything less is just flogging your book.
And do.....please......read just a little of mine BEFORE you tell me what I think......please.
.
Just for the record, I've not taken cheap shots at your level of education. You have interpreted my comment before as such that if people, including you, had studied sociology for instance, that you'd understand the point I was trying to make that was getting you really angry about: that social structure is overall more important than individuals' intentions or values or beliefs. That was all that it was. So as I said before, it wasn't a slam against your education and wasn't intended as such. If you read my book, and I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, than you'd see that from the very beginning of the book till the last chapter that I make a point of the fact that treating people as inferior because they have not had access to the same opportunities for education is against everything I believe in. There is a difference between saying to someone that if you had studied auto mechanics, for example, then you'd know what I mean when I refer to such and such and saying to them - you're a dummy because you never studied auto mechanics. The former is what I said the equivalent of, not the latter.
As for the rest of it, I stand corrected as to your stand on some aspects of the present governmental structures and I'm quite happy to be corrected.
I do not agree with you that referring to books is problematic. That is what you didn't like in the parts of my book that you have read - that I did refer to other people's works, including their books. When I did that in my book I wasn't "flogging" their books. The reason is wholly different as I've previously explained: social knowledge is a collective process over time and we are building upon the work of others and on our own work.
I once told you that you know nothing of my level of education; both formal and experiential. One day you are in for a surprise - no, not a surprise, a shock. What you declare as your "beliefs" is belied by your patronizing attitude.
Look friend, when you make references to books that are common "in your field" while writing for your contemporaries, that is one thing. When you do the same in a blog or even in a book that is intended for reading by the general public, it is quite another.
Your assumption that I am criticizing you when I point out that making such references in a blog on OS is very unhelpful and that you might be much better read and understood were you to keep in mind that the manner in which you acquire your knowledge is not necessarily the manner in which you ought to share it with others in this forum.
I think that you have ideas worth understanding and discussing. But constant references to volumes not readily available to those others in the discussion, makes you appear an erudition snob. Simply express the ideas you wish to communicate. No one needs a doctorate to understand a neat synopsis of the material to which you refer. There is certainly no harm in citing the work from which you draw your quotes but for pete's sake don't send people to look up the doggone quote! Say it! If you've adopted it, then it is now "yours" enough to be put out there as part of the discussion. None of this, "this is covered in chapter 5 of my book" stuff either. Say what you've covered in ch. 5...etc. Few readers of a blog are going to run out and buy your book so as to know what the heck you're talking about. (Yeah, I know. I did.)
And jejune STILL deserves a respectful answer to his questions.
.
I have no idea what your education has been and I haven't ventured any opinions about it. So speaking of being "patronizing" isn't germane. I would point out since you have taken the position that I have misbehaved, that you should go back and look over your comments threads in the past on my blog and ask yourself who has been respectful or disrespectful.
If you recall, I made the remark to you and another person a while back about sociology after a series of comments back and forth in which you were really annoyed at me for taking a position that you regarded as indefensible. I said after this back and forth that you'd better get what I was saying about what, by the way, sociologists sometimes refer to as the "sociological imagination," or as I put it, the key role of social structure and social context, if you had ever taken a sociology class.
Whether I have answered Jejune or not is up to him to decide.
So Professor Loo's quotation of Max Weber about the reality of the instrumentality of hidden violence in the present political structure, that, according to analysts like Professor Loo, must be met with the power of contravening political structures, such as a growing OM, the power of the people, etc. ....all this theorizing will not change the perception by the overwhelming majority of Americans, I believe, that electoral politics remains the only viable modality for expressing political thinking ultimately, and political activity must result finally by participating in the formal political structure of the country that is embodied in its traditions and Constitution, central to which is the reliance on organized elections as the way that the people express their political desires. Of course there is much room for protests, demonstrations, etc. for a time, prior to the crystallization of the opinions and attitudes of the protesters, and the supporters they can persuade, in the election campaigns of formal politics. But elections are the final state of political activity. You can propound all the consciousness raising you desire Professor Loo, you and as many others as think as you do. Just be prepared to put the results of all those small scale experiences with General Assemblies, etc., and the shaping of new attitudes and visions by all the adherents you can reach, in an election campaign. So we have an irresolvable, fundamental difference Professor Loo, you and I...but my thinking represents the majority of the people in my opinion.
This will likely be my last attempt to communicate with you on this subject. For pete's sake man READ what you just wrote.....! I quote, "".....................since you have taken the position that I have misbehaved, that you should go back and look over your comments threads in the past on my blog ...........""!!!!
Exactly what I have taken you to task for doing! Damn but I wish you'd just spit out what you want to say and stop this foolish and annoying playing-the-role of "The Erudite Professor". That may impress people within then walls of academia but out here in the real world it's just patronizing , insulting and offensive. Or is that, as I suspect, your intent?
If you have any problem with anything I said, why not just quote me, indicating from which blog you are quoting, and get on with refuting my statement. Your silly/clever method is to hint at some great error I have made, without mentioning what it was. It's silly because I know what you are referring to and it is not as you say it is. But others reading this will not know and will not bother to peruse all your previous blogs and any comments of mine that are in them. This, again, is a method commonly, although not exclusively, used by the religious and the political left. I detest it and have developed a great disrespect for those who employ it. And yes "Professor" that means you.
.
"I do not perceive any possibility whatsoever for any kind of revolutionary change in the minuscule OM...minuscule compared to the vast swathes of society that are very disengaged from politics and want to remain that way, and, despite being disaffected from and critical of the present power structure, remain very suspicious of any RADICAL movements purporting to reform the power structure for the 'greater good of society.'"
The OM is far more popular based on polling data from numerous sources than the political structures (Congress' approval rating, for example, is at an all time low of 9%!). A majority of Americans express to pollsters support for the aims and critique of the OM. In NY the support for the criticism made by the OM in the most recent poll that I saw was 63%.
So that's to the question of the miniscule nature of the OM.
You say "I don't think it will grow because the proletariat will not participate I believe" but the proletariat (e.g., union members and union leadership as well as non-unionized workers) have already been joining this movement. Vets have been coming out in very substantial numbers, not only on their own, but as an organized force. The OM is hugely popular, particularly for a movement so young.
Weber's analysis of the nature of the state is not just a theory. It's based on an analysis of actual states over long periods of time and all of the continents.
As to Skypixie's comments:
I do not really understand why you find it necessary or desirable to get angry at me and throw around insults. The only thing I can think of to explain it is that you were somehow so disturbed by my saying that it would have helped if you had taken a sociology or anthropology class at some time in your life that it triggered a resentment of academics vein in you. That would explain numerous comments from you such as this most recent one:
"Damn but I wish you'd just spit out what you want to say and stop this foolish and annoying playing-the-role of 'The Erudite Professor'. That may impress people within then walls of academia but out here in the real world it's just patronizing , insulting and offensive. Or is that, as I suspect, your intent?"
How have I been patronizing? Where are these insults of you by me? What has been offensive in what I've said? What is the need or the basis for the insults of yours such as asserting that I have been playing at "Erudite Professor?" You may not like the way that I write, but if you can't understand it, then why do you come back for more?
I have not insulted you in any of these threads, not once, not even remotely. I have not used anything like the language you have used against me. Where we disagree I have sometimes pointed these out but not because I take your views as a personal affront but because I'm interested in pursuing what is true.
I will confess that I have found your invective against me to be distressing because it's unpleasant to be insulted in this fashion. I have nothing against you personally and I fail to see how I have done anything to you to warrant your outbursts.
Your last comment was to accuse me of trying to conceal something "Your silly/clever method is to hint at some great error I have made, without mentioning what it was. It's silly because I know what you are referring to and it is not as you say it is."
So here's the thread that I was referring to previously since you claim that I am trying to conceal something:
These are excerpts from the comments thread in response to an October 21, 2011 post of mine entitled “Why Are Economies in Crisis?” http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2011/10/21/why_are_economies_in_crisis
Skypixie:
It seems now that you are merely another socialist hack who will do anything, say anything, and offer any insult to anyone who might question your “socialist-inspired” theories.
I accuse you directly of having begun with a conclusion and built your arguments, premise by premise, upon only that evidence which supports your predetermined conclusion. October 23, 2011
If I too may be allowed to "speak sharply”, - you know shit. October 23, 2011
[My response to this:
As a preface to my further discussion of your point, I do need to say something about the tone of your comments.
To say that I don't know "shit" and to make statements about the fact that I am somehow living some isolated and comfortable existence in the ivory tower and that therefore I only have book learning, is a stereotype of me that doesn't conform to my life, my experiences, or to my views. I will allow that there certainly ARE people who are exclusively book-learned and who don't know what they have studied through books very well or who are in fact rather ignorant about what they claim to know. You don't really know me well enough to say these things about me. And they're not true. So please stop with the insults and stereotypes.]
Skypixie:
Dennis,
The subject of most of the first part your reply needs no further comment by me.
You’re so busy trying to put me down because I don’t knowingly regurgitate that you’ve ended up making a complete ass of yourself here.
I am sad that you are so locked in to socialist clap-trap that you’ll only accept ideas compatible to it. All others are, to you, rigid adherence to that weird notion you have about what capitalism “must be” in order for your socialist ideas to make any sense.
I do not care one whit if I come up with an idea that someone else has had a thousand years ago - or last week. If I did not know of it before I thought of it then I invented it as surely as did anyone who came up with it independently. The only difference is that I would not have been its first inventor. You have repeatedly insisted that I have had no new ideas. You are wrong. Every idea that anyone has, which they come up with on their own, is new to them and legitimately “theirs.” I have never claimed to be the sole owner of any idea; I claim that I thought up my ideas on my own because that is exactly what I did; and without benefit of your self described education and erudition too! Imagine that! Well, no. I suppose you can’t imagine that, at all.
What a shame.
Your blog - your last word. I’ll not be back. Bye.
October 25, 2011
(sic)
.
You are welcome to post comments on my blog but I will insist from now on that you stop your stream of personal attacks and insults against me. There is no reason for it and I am out of patience with your bad manners. I have spoken consistently to the content of your comments and not engaged in personal attacks and accusations and asked you to refrain from insults, your response to the latter only being "no comment."
It is not too much to ask that you be civil and stick to the content of posts and stop with the insults. If you cannot be civil then please do not post your comments here.
You are free to post what you like elsewhere, but I am sure that you can understand that it is not unreasonable to ask that you be civil on my blog. Lest you misunderstand what I have said, let me be explicit: you are free to express your disagreements with me; you are not free to hurl insults.
I need no permission from you to post my comments on your blog. What you do with such comments after I post them is up to you. Your actions at that time will, perhaps more clearly than anything I could ever say, make it plain what and who you are.
I suppose that there are some who read you that haven't the ability to detect the much more subtle insults that you offer but most of your readers will have no such difficulty.
You apparently consider it an "insult" to be disagreed with in any manner that you can't handle. And any "insult" that I might make, has the quality of openness and is right up-front. I don't use weasel words, pretending a politeness I don't feel while slipping in digs at someone for them not having read the same works that I have read.
I need no lessons in politeness from such as you.
.
.