>Joe E. Dees
>
>I'm just poking a few sacred cows, and seeing which bulls come to
>defend their territory;~).
So, that would be "an exercise"? Your reply indicates that you don't have any strong feelings one way or the other, but are just sort of seeing what will happen. That's fine. I just need to understand what your intent is.
>But seriously, the question (which you elided with your counter-
>question) remains. If level 3 can be reasonably described in
>this manner, why shouldn't it be?
I'm not eluding the question. I can't answer it generally because, from my perspective, there is no general answer. The answer would depend on the context. If you believe that this is the most accurate way of describing level 3, then you should describe it thus, and use as much effort as you feel neccesary to defend your position.
>Is or is not level 3 (a memeset of which I still have not conceded
>acceptance) amenable to, or even facilitative of, sociopatic abuse?
As is science. Have you heard of the "Manhattan Project"? Great achievement...horrible massacre...terrible, endemic fear of total annihilation. As favorite musician, Ani DiFranco, says:
"Every tool is a weapon, if you hold it right."
>Maybe it IS bad; is a discussion of that possibility taboo on this list?
Nope. Do you think it IS bad? What experience has lead you to this belief?
>Is it indeed the penultimate politician's modus operandi?
Do you mean: "don't all politicians bullshit like you are?" What do you think? To me, it's true in a sense. Do you think politicans are bad?
>It's a fair question. Try answering it this time, hokay?
Was that OK, or were you looking for something else? I'm trying. [shrug]
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------