In a message dated 2/16/03 5:15:51 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:


> That's an interesting word, polemicist, for what I'd ordinarily
> label a fanatic: same thing.
>

Is it the same thing?   Polemics suggest argument, which suggests reason.
Fanatacism implies a lack of reason.     The anti-war sentiments are highly
impassioned but they're not without reason.
My reaction to Brennen is that same as to our vanished friend Stoner: It's so
pointless - yet there are words on the screen! - that it's frustrating.   He
says nothing, offers no argument, other than to say he's discussing issues.
He supports the war and democracy.   (There's something to sink your teeth
into! ) His wife bakes cookies.   The snow outside his window moves him to
doggerel of such banality that one can only respond by barking.
Suddenly, Foucalt's being bandied about as if there's any discussion going
on.   There's not.   Brennen'd notice that if he weren't so stirred by the
treacly aroma wafting from the next room and the gently resting snowfall.
Having responded I fear I may have encouraged him.