[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

William Pietri wrote

> Of course, to me, this underlines John's point. He can't even bring up 
> an article that calls Brandt a conspiracy theorist and mentions the 
> SV-as-MI5 bit as obvious nuttery without getting accused of acting in 
> bad faith.

I thought the point about the dead horse was rarely the good faith with which the flogging was being carried out. Oh, let's see, to have good faith in the flogging, you'd have to believe that the horse was still alive. In which case, it is not so much mauvaise foi we are talking about, but an inhumane approach to an animal, which even if goaded into standing up, isn't going to transport you anywhere.

Actually there was a tad of bad faith in the posting. It is clear that the topic can be thrashed into generating more heat than light, yet again. (Surely everyone realizes that the "don't bring that up again" topic eventually hangs over any email list.) I think John knew that, perfectly well. The old nag will have to go through its paces, the opinions of few people will change.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam