Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:51:30 -0700
From: Michael Andre-Driussi 
Subject: (urth) annoying silliness

Hartshorn quoted blattid and wrote:
>> As for granting Orwell primacy in this matter, well, that's
>> pretty silly.
>
>Oh, pish-tosh.

Indeed.

We were drawn (or "suckered") into discussing Orwell because blattid
expressed incomprehension as to why =anyone= would link Orwell to Ascian
Correct Thought.

Was blattid unaware of the Newspeak notion (a top-down language reform that
attempts to shape a new national character by design rather than the
natural accident that has produced for example the stereo-typical
Frenchman, Spaniard, German, Italian, etc.)?  No, not at all -- so he is
not strangely ignorant of Orwell (a relief, in a sense).

Was blattid aware that Mao's little red book had not historically been used
across an entire culture the way that it had been used, anecdotally, by a
couple of Berkeleyites in the 70s?  Yes, he was aware (a relief, in a
sense).

Blattid has presented an inscrutable position, and seems to relish it that
way.

No matter: blattid was the one who asked for explanation; between us,
hartshorn and I have presented the case.  Case closed.

=mantis=



--