Print

Print


am 13.12.2002 15:09 Uhr schrieb Ken Armstrong unter [log in to unmask]:

> Thanks, Gunnar, for opening my eyes to the problem in perception here.
> While "fiercely liberal" (your characterization) and "incredibly abusive"
> (Michelle Hadden's) may be overstatements (or maybe not), does it take much
> imagination to see that they occupy here, if not fill up, two sides of the
> same perceptual coin?
>
> For my part, unless the sky really is falling, I didn't see any language
> in John Ryskamp's post or Peter Montgomery's post that should have
> warranted any declarations of abusive language, let alone "the most
> offensive message ever posted on this list" etc.  I mention both because it
> was not at all clear who could have been the "offender." One can only
> wonder what the perceived offense was, and wonder at the remark itself
> which seems to manage at the same time to be baseless, off-base, and base.
> Though, unintentionally, one presumes.
>
> We do seem to get in a snit in December, don't we?
>
> Given TSE's belief, Gunnar,  that ours is an age (ours and his are not
> different in that character, are they?) worm-eaten by liberalism, what do
> you think he would make of a "fiercely liberal" commentator on his poetry,
> etc.?


Dear Ken,

there seems to be a misunderstanding based on different values attributed to
the term "liberalism" in the US and in Europe.

As far as I conceive it, calling an American a liberal is almost an insult,
often confounded with libertine, (or, even worse, a godless pinko commie),
whereas it is considered quite a positive trait over here.

B.t.w.: the same applies to "socialism".

But I'm going to be able to compare while tramping around the US next week.

> Given TSE's belief, Gunnar,  that ours is an age (ours and his are not
> different in that character, are they?) worm-eaten by liberalism,

Where did he say so?


Gunnar