From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 21:21:25 BST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizaphanian [SMTP:Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:12 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Conservatism/ MoQ interpretation of
>
> Steve Sam Platt and all:
>
> Sam said to Platt:
> Thanks for putting up this link. I had gained the impression that Scalia
> was
> an unreconstructed fundamentalist; clearly he's thought deeply and
> intelligently about the issues.
>
> Platt said:
> > In his post of 6 Oct. trashing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,
> > David Buchanan presented a completely misleading report on what
> > Scalia said in a talk to the Pew Forum on the morality of the death
> > penalty. In his eagerness to do a hatchet job on a conservative, David
> > used the technique of that master prevaricator, James Carvell, by
> > presenting only partial quotes out of context and then loudly engaging
> in
> > character assassination and the rhetoric of personal destruction so
> > widely practiced during the Clinton regime.
> >
> > There's no point in doing a line by line refutation of David's twisted
> > version of Scalia's talk since what Scalia really said is available on
> the
> > web for you to read if interested. The site is:
> >
> > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html
>
> Steve said:
> Scalia doesn't sound quite as lunatic as some of the quotes would
> suggest, but I'll maintain that he's dangerously dangerously irrational.
> I can't think of anything I've read from anyone in recent time that
> offers a dimmer view of Modernity, Democracy, Intellectualism,
> Individual Liberty, Secular society, or Dynamic Quality than Scalia's
> little essay.
> If I were a Conservative, I'd would hate Scalia for reinforcing a
> negative stereotype of Conservatives as reactionary, bible thumping,
> theocrats.
>
> DMB says:
> Sam, how is it that your opinion of Scalia changed from "scarry" to deep
> and intelligent? Did he say something that, in your view, undoes the
> quotes I included? Did he contradict himself or modify his comments in
> such a way as to make all those quoted statements go away? Does it not
> concern you that a 21st century Supreme Court Justice would title his
> speech "God's Justice and Ours" and in it urge U.S. citizens to combat
> democracy in favor of divine authority? How can this be explained away as
> anything other than anti-democratic and anti-modern? Its extremely
> obvious, isn't it?
>
> Platt, how can you claim that the Scalia quotes were out of context when I
> explicitly said what the context was; a speech defending the death penalty
> to the Pew Forum? I can only assume that you don't know what "out of
> context" means. You provided a link to the speech as if you were revealing
> some great deception, as if nobody but you knows how to search the web, as
> if google doesn't exist. Character assassination and personal destruction?
> I can only assume that you don't know the difference between criticism and
> personal insult. I characterized the man's views, not the man. Your
> response paints me as a dishonest assassin because what? Because I didn't
> include the entire speech? That's not dishonesty, its just a matter of
> being succinct and to the point. Irrational respones like this only
> further reinforce the negative stereotypes of Conservatives.
>
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:55 GMT