A poster says "thanks babblers" and is shit upon from great heights - with impunity - again and again.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
Actually this should probably be in rabble reactions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

I think it qualifies as a "frequently asked question."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

I think it qualifies as a "frequently asked question."

---

quote:

---

Cueball's challenge to Brian Topp's feel-good post was, in my eyes, perfectly appropriate, especially if as Topp said, NDP officials look to Babble as a sounding board to assess their policy choices.
If the NDP claims to be ethical Canadians' conscience in Parliament - as it should - there are immense blind spots it has to be brought to acknowledge.
Which seems to involve, regrettably, a lot of supercilious resistance.

---

"supercilious resistance"?

What vacuous bloody nonsense! The screwball by the name of cueball is engaging in innuendo in an attack that in any other venue would be halted in the name of decency.

This is not supercilious resistance, you mealy-mouthed, pandering twirp. This is innuendo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Victor:
A poster says "thanks babblers" and is shit upon from great heights - with impunity - again and again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
It was a pretty backhanded thank you from someone who pretends to be interested in political debate but announces his intention to ignore pointed and embarrassing questions posed by "anonymous" babblers.

---

quote:

---

It was a pretty backhanded thank you...

---

quote:

---

you mealy-mouthed, pandering twirp

---

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Any on-going thread however poor is the surest indication that peace is prevailing over violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

I think it qualifies as a "frequently asked question."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
No justice, no peace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:

Give your names then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Prove to me that you are Benoit first? Send JPEG's of your photographic ID's to me via PM, and I will send you my address, you can in turn send me photcopies of the same so I can be doubly sure you are who you say you are. For someone who is an avid supporter of deliberative democracy you seem very interested in expanding the power of the culture of survielance.

---

quote:

---

A poster says "thanks babblers" and is shit upon from great heights - with impunity - again and again.

---

If they came here expecting fawning, cringing, deferential awe at the glory of recognition from the NDP, he came to the wrong place.

quote:

---

If they came here expecting fawning, cringing, deferential awe at the glory of recognition from the NDP, he came to the wrong place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:

Why should I do all that!? I was never genuinely accused to be untrustworthy.

---

So why should I give my name for anyone or anything.

I am sorry, Topp game here to officially express his thanks to Babblers, both NDP and otherwise (?) for their support in the election. He did not come go express his thanks to all non-anonymous Babblers, both NDP and otherswise (?). He made that statement regardless of the anonominity of numerous persons who are avid NDP supporters who also choose to remain anonymous. He did this specifically certifying the post whith his title, and his name as an NDP official.

It was, in fact, an official NDP statement therefore. There is no reason that anyone should be particularly defferential simply because the NDP is issuing its statements on the board.

It is entirely fair game.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

If they came here expecting fawning, cringing, deferential awe at the glory of recognition from the NDP, he came to the wrong place.

---

quote:

---

de·lib·er·a·tive (d-lb-rtv, -r--tv)
adj.
1. Assembled or organized for deliberation or debate: a deliberative legislature.
2. Characterized by or for use in deliberation or debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

So why should I give my name for anyone or anything.

I am sorry, Topp game here to officially express his thanks to Babblers, both NDP and otherwise (?) for their support in the election. He did not come go express his thanks to all non-anonymous Babblers, both NDP and otherswise (?). He made that statement regardless of the anonominity of numerous persons who are avid NDP supporters who also choose to remain anonymous. He did this specifically certifying the post whith his title, and his name as an NDP official.

It was, in fact, an official NDP statement therefore. There is no reason that anyone should be particularly defferential simply because the NDP is issuing its statements on the board.

It is entirely fair game.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:

A deliberative question cannot remain geared toward one particular individual; it has to carry a universalizing objective; it has to reach the interest of every human including all those not born yet.

---

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:

A deliberative answer should include no such open-ended "if".

---

Here is a good excerpt if one is to understand the relation in between deliberation and counterfactuality.

web page

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Nope indeed! (Just posting to get the long URL off TAT)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:

Here is a good excerpt if one is to understand the relation in between deliberation and counterfactuality.

web page

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

---

Well I find Habermas's assertion of the existance of "public and private" spheres to be aribtrary. For example there seems to be some confusion here as to wether or not Babble is private or public, in the case that some seem to feel that it is completely legitimate to function in the apparently public sphere of chat board chat, in the comfort of their homes, in complete in the privates sphere, others seem to be asserting that it be purely defined as public sphere activity by intervening in the affairs of the board directly by representing themselves from the perspective of their "public sphere" rolls (for example as campaign managers of political parties) and casting aspertions on persons for not recognizing the superior authority of that "public sphere" entitlement by attacking the desires of some to act within the context of the board as if it is an "prvate sphere" activity by maintaining personal anoniminity, in the public sphere.

I would say this in some ways summarizes the whole conflict in an nutshell, for in fact many people, myself for example, consider this web site to be a kind of internet home in the private sphere, while other consider it a political vehicle in the public sphere, where they propogate the success of the public sphere political bodies to which they belong, even at the expense of sincere intimate dialogue.

On the subject of getting people to "clean up their act" I would not say that reacting to criticism by calling people "Poodles", and "communists", and engaging in other ad hominem attacking behaviour is not asking people to "clean up their act" but actually asking to be dismissed as a bunch of cranks.

That is true either in the public or the private spheres.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Well I find Habermas's assertion of the existance of "public and private" spheres to be aribtrary. For example there seems to be some confusion here as to wether or not Babble is private or public, in the case that some seem to feel that it is completely legitimate to function in the apparently public sphere of chat board chat, in the comfort of their homes, in complete in the privates sphere, others seem to be asserting that it be purely defined as public sphere activity by intervening in the affairs of the board directly by representing themselves from the perspective of their "public sphere" rolls (for example as campaign managers of political parties) and casting aspertions on persons for not recognizing the superior authority of that "public sphere" entitlement by attacking the desires of some to act within the context of the board as if it is an "prvate sphere" activity by maintaining personal anoniminity, in the public sphere.

I would say this in some ways summarizes the whole conflict in an nutshell, for in fact many people, myself for example, consider this web site to be a kind of internet home in the private sphere, while other consider it a political vehicle in the public sphere, where they propogate the success of the public sphere political bodies to which they belong, even at the expense of sincere intimate dialogue.

On the subject of getting people to "clean up their act" I would not say that reacting to criticism by calling people "Poodles", and "communists", and engaging in other ad hominem attacking behaviour is not asking people to "clean up their act" but actually asking to be dismissed as a bunch of cranks.

That is true either in the public or the private spheres.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

One thing some critics of Habermas don't seem to understand is that for him a deliberation is a collective action geared toward rediscovering the co-originality of the private and public spheres. For him, the two realms came to life together and cannot remain separated for too long without people developing mental illnesses. No one can become an autonomous individual without having benefited from a specific public realm.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/2/9/1/p82917_index.html

In a deliberation, the communications move from an authority-governed complementarity to behavioral expectations of social roles guided and linked together by accepted norms, and finally to ideal role-taking where participants are impregnated by a cooperative search for truth. Ideal role-taking means that all participants try to adopt the perspectives of all others in the balancing of interests.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

I think it qualifies as a "frequently asked question."

---

No kidding. In thread after thread after thread...