Re: We miss AGF! (fwd)

i was just interpreting the sentence as it was written. i do not have an
essential disagreement with what you say below.

regards,

Mine Aysen Doyran
phd candidate
dept of pol scie
Graduate School--Nelson A. Rockefeller College
SUNY/Albany

>no.  "we" is the righteous, presumably pro-NATO apologists who resent
>criticism but accept it, just so long as it never stops, ever allows
>itself
>to be transformed by events, never allows its author to look anything
>other
>than crazed and ridiculous.  This is beyond the "rhetorical".  It is
>homocidal.
 >  I, for one, don't need AGF to speak.  I'd listen if he did; just as
>I'd
>listen to anyone.  I prefer, however, not to treat him like an enemy who
>is
>wrong, or a guru who must have an answer or "a truly deep analysis" for
>everything, but as a fellow human being struggling with a difficult truth
>(events), and a difficult world.

> >i think, "we" is the "network" that the author is referring to. the
> >"concrete", not the rhetorical "we".