Re: Who we are/How we write

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Ken wrote:

> Really? Ya think so? I didn't read that at all in what Jerry was saying.
>
> I think he was saying you are a long-winded, jargon-drunk bore. And that
> anything you might have to contribute is lost for that reason. I might be
> wrong.

I do not believe that Juan is "wacky" -- I believe he is sharp, *very*
sharp. Even if his prose may appear to Ken as a "disease", we still have
the responsibility to take his ideas seriously. I also don't believe that
Juan is a "jargon-drunk bore" (although, he can be "long-winded").

If we could move this discussion back to the question: "What do you
[Juan] think are the issues at stake [in the debate over value, method
politics]?", then I believe that we could be able to continue that thread.

Further, if Juan could be able to put the issues succinctly, then we can
focus our discussion more.

I now regret ever starting the "Who we are/How we write" thread.

Jerry


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------