The people at the Tribune seem to have wanted to give my blogalogue adversary the final word over there: They have yet to post the response I sent in a week ago. But I shall not be defeated. I have other ways of reaching the mas...well...the seven of you, anyway.
Here is the blogalogue as it stands.
And. Here is what the Tribune should have posted last week:
Laurie,
Once again, you have twisted my words and offered nothing substantive in response. It's clear at this point that this discussion is going nowhere. At every turn it seems I have to untangle my words from the spinning you've put them through.
So, one last time: My concern is not that you don't offer "reasoned" argument; my concern is that your reasoning is punctuated with alarmist analogies and all the rest of the devices I mentioned previously.
I am left to assume that you offer such things in place of substance -- like, say, the first principles you still apparently refuse to reveal. I appreciate your suggestions for relevant reading (charitably, I'll assume away your condescension), and I'll add those books and authors to my ever-growing list.
But, though I understand it might take a book to describe and support a first principle in detail, I must say I'd find it odd if you couldn't also simply state yours succinctly -- so odd, in fact, that I must assume you could, but won't.
So whether I find your ideas intellectually and ethically bankrupt is for now, to my dismay (and despite the words you've put in my mouth), an open question.
And apparently, by your design, it will remain so until other authors explain you for you.
Until then, then,
Peace.
Jordan Blumenthal
Chicago, IL
UPDATE: Apparently sending the response in again did the trick. It is now posted on the Tribune blog. Same link as above.
