From: FDHJKJGHGYEGHSBNGCHBCHJBCH@HDGYGDYGYGY.COM   
      
   "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   news:IZX9f.10784$dO2.9296@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...   
   > Joe Fineman wrote:   
   > > Martha Bridegam  writes:   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >>Good points all -- but wrt O'Brien I wonder if it isn't a case of a   
   > >>Holmesian exception-that-proves-the-rule: the discovery that O'Brien   
   > >>isn't as benevolent as he seems could be viewed as one more betrayal   
   > >>of the natural order of things, like the clocks striking that   
   > >>non-iambic thirteen.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > I thought that was what I was saying when I said   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >>>In _Nineteen Eighty-Four_, the treacherous failure of that notion   
   > >>>is presented as one of the horrors.   
   >   
   > Suppose so.   
   >   
   > As for the true state of things, if human faces could really   
   > be read reliably, betrayal wouldn't be such a theme in life   
   > and literature, would it?   
   >   
   > Getting back to Sherlock and George, though, what bugs me is   
   >   that a habit of viewing people as members of more or less   
   > unbreakable human "types" is kind of inconsistent with   
   > egalitarian politics.   
      
   I thought you were in agreement with 'types'? As for being inconsistent, I   
   would say that egalitarian/collectivist politics is totally consistent with   
   'types' as is capitalism. 'Egalitarian' politics is in favour of employing   
   people on the basis of their SKIN COLOUR fer chrise sake.   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)