Re: Request to Ruth was Re: BHA: Re: Bhaskar's politics

[Ruth Groff <rgroff@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

Listen, if people feel that the recent round of discussion has been
constructive, then I take back my request.  Really.  I am genuinely more
than happy to skip stuff that isn't as interesting to me.

Ruth

At 01:31 AM 2/16/01 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I agree with Carrol that Sean's posts are of intrinsic interest.  Actually
>I cannot imagine that we are discussing whether they should be off or on list.
>
>Howard
>
>
>
>
>
>At 10:17 AM 2/16/01 +1000, you wrote:
>>Hi I have been off list.  Let me tell y'all that it is not a good idea to
>>spill the coffee over the keyboard. Talk about being Irish!
>>
>>Ruth could you please resend to me your post on the introduction? It has
>>become extra virtual or something.
>>
>>As for the below, I do not really disagree.  Andrew feels strongly and so
>>do the rest of us.  A spot of unconditional love is in order, and that
>>should perhaps take the form of moving away from the point of conflict for
>>the moment.  Easy to say.  Hard to do.
>>
>>regards
>>
>>Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 04:47  15/02/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>I know I'm just one voice here - and Gary, I suspect, will be opposed to
>>>what I'm about to ask - but I'm wondering, Sean, if there is any way that
>>>you might consider continuing your debate with Andrew off-list.   If not,
>>>I'll certainly live.  But I've done that -- pursued a topic off-list when
>>>it's something that I'm keenly interested in but others seem to be getting
>>>tired of.
>>>
>>>Ruth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>>
>>
>>
>>     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---