[lit-ideas] Re: Ground Zero (hey, Eric?)

From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:44:30 EDT
My last post today -- 
 
In a message dated 8/3/2010 9:17:57 P.M., carolkir@xxxxxxxxx writes:

like  some sort of trophy to the victors of war.
 
------
 
Egsactly, as one might say. The link given by J. K. mentioned:
 
>"a 13-story, $100 million Islamic center. Cordoba wants to transform  the 
building into a glass tower with a swimming pool, basketball court,  
auditorium and culinary school besides the mosque. The center, called Park51,  
also 
would have a library, art studios and meditation rooms."
 
(I have not checked the link provided by J. Evans). 
 
---- Oddly, I was made aware of this at the Club (I mean, the Grice Club)  
where one contributor wrote under my post, "refudiate: vomit?" -- I was  
referring to an online source that was criticising Palin for not being 'clear  
enough' when she said to 'refudiate' the plan (My current pet is that  
introducing such a new lexeme can only confuse the not so literati: it sounds  
too much like 'repudiate'). 
 
Anyway, this contributor put me to task, logically, for focusing on a  
semantic issue, when it was (I will rephrase the contributor's posting)
 
it being a "political [or] ethical [issue]", rather.
 
By referring to the consensus, in my post to lit-ideas, I was in a way  
adhering to a point made by this contributor, to the effect, that consesus, the 
 contributor claimed, is "not how American business operates". So we'll see 
what  comes up out of this. There is an appeal to be held tomorrow.
 
The contributor makes a point about _whose_ vote counts, and the  
contributor suggests, "local citizens" "within a few miles" of the proposed  
'sacred' 
building -- adding that's possibly "not how the free market  works".
 
The contributor also makes the point that sacred buildings, it seems, bear  
"tax-exempt status."

The contributor notes that Palin sounds "likes she's trying  to accommodate 
NY muslims."
 
The contributor also makes the good point that "some might feel the  
mosque's inappropriate", without implying they are conservatives.
 
----- I'll check with J. Evans's what blocks this is supposed to cover --.  
I see the major celebrated, as it were, that the building which now stands 
does  not qualify as a 'landmark' -- but that is what is going to be 
appealed  tomorrow, it seems. In any case, the issue seems minor here, in that 
even 
 if it were given landmark status, the proposed centre would be built -- a  
smaller one, within the existing structure.
 
Etc.
 
Refudiate? Quite 'pls refudiate'. A point against Palin seems to be: if she 
 was coining a clever Dodgsonianism, why did she delete the original 
message  anyway? (I trust it was to avoid breaching the Gricean maxim, 'avoid 
confusion',  or something --).
 
Speranza
The Swimming-Pool Library
Bordighera
[lit-ideas] Re: Ground Zero (hey, Eric?)

Other related posts:
