Pete Bayle  wrote:   
      
      
   > Simple point really. You are defining "anti-imperialism" as part of   
   > "any" (your word) radical sensiblity. A sine qua non.   
   >   
      
   > What I am asking for is a working out of your idea of "radical   
   > sensiblity". Which lies at the root, I think, of the battle to claim   
   > Orwell. And I am interested primarily in working this out for Orwell   
   > in his times. I beleive that not many Orwell readers really understand   
   > this history.   
   >   
   > Obviously you are not claiming that "radical sensibility" just means   
   > radical for it's own sake. In the way that the Nazis were radical. So   
   > you must have a group of issues that you think crucial.   
      
      
   > It seems to me that "radicalism" is a moving target. That some view it   
   > as impossible to be a "radical" if you stop at a certain point, that   
   > is don't daon't accept all theoretical fashions of the moment. This   
   > point seems unarguable, given the fragmentation and the schisms   
   > prevalent throughout the history of the left.   
      
   this "discussion" is becoming pointless.   
      
   You are trying to do some etymological deconstruction work   
    with the grand aimn of proving that Orwell was not radcial, kleftwing,   
   socialist or what have you.   
      
   I am no longer interested in using my time to follow you down thes   
   twisting byroads of the modern reactionary mind.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)