Re: moderation, list purpose

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Gary M. wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Ralph Dumain wrote:
>
> > This is really reprehensible.  In fact, there are tons of online forums
> > for political discussion.  One or two combine both thery and practice,
> > the rst are mostly issue-oriented.  p.news.discuss did both a few years
> > ago.  All of Peacenet isdevoted to social issues.  Ths list presumably
> > delas with theoretical, historical, and practical matters, hopefully
> > from a standoint that involves more rationcination than day-to-day activism.
> > Stop acting like_you_ own this list.  Perhaps you are the one who is in
> > the wrong place.  Your behavior over the past couple of months has been
> > reprehensible, especially now that you are a moderator.
> >
> > I cannot believe the above.

I can *not* believe Gary's post, but I can believe Ralph's post.
Regardless of his behavior in the past, Ralph speaks honestly above. Let
me note, also, that Ralph{s conduct has improved *greatly* in the last
couple of months.

> Straight up Ralph this is unworthy of you.
> Louis and Ralph have alas fallen out.  But of course the bad feeling is
> all on Ralph's part.

This is outrageous and indicates the extent to which Gary has become a
"moderator."

> It does indeed seem at times that Louis is like a lightning rod on this
> list for people's neuroses.

Another attempt to avoid discussing the issues.

> Somewhere in space there is
> a post I sent out yesterday about Jerry and Louis so I will wait and see
> if it turns up.  If not I will rewrite another piece about Jerry's
> obsession with Louis.

*You* are acting one-sidedly and are hurting the l*st.

> Now about the list.  I am one of those who think things are going very
> well.

Yeah. right!

>
> Now a word on Louis' method.  He is of course a classic stick bender in
> the Leninist mode.  He over stresses (deliberately) one side of the
> dialectic.  Now comrades is there any one out there who thinks that
> contemporary Marxist writng is in danger of moving too much in the
> direction of praxis?  Is there anyone who thinks that today's academics
> are in danger of writing too simply?

When one argues, as Louis did, that he is not interested in theory and
believes that this should be a activist-only vehicle, that is an attack
against *both* Marxism and this l**t. The integration and dialectical
unity in separation of theory and practice is an *essential* component of
Marxism.

> Louis has insisted on people writing clearly.

Loosing your memory, Gary? What else did Louis insist upon?

> For him [Jerry] the
> seminar on Cuba will be a "disaster"  Wrong, very wrong.

THERE WILL BE *NO* CYBER-SEMINAR on CUBA. THAT IS AN OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT.

Like the fascism
> seminar, it will give shape to the list and bring some focus and, yes,
> discipline to a percentage  of the contributions.

Discipline?!!!

> I repeat the Cuban seminar will not interfere with other threads.  Nor will
> any contribution be censored.  At the end of it we will all have learned
> something provided of course we do not see our main task on the list as
> keeping tabs on Louis or treat the contributions as term papers.

The fascism cyber-seminar *did* interfere with other threads. That is a
*fact* that can be documented by the archives.

Louis will *not* lead any more cyber-seminars. If there is an attempt by
the co-moderators to *impose* the Cuba cyberseminar on us with Louis
then I will *fillibuster* this l**t. That is a promise!

Gary, Bryan, and Louis represent a *tiny* minority on this l**t. The
co-mods are acting irresponsibly and there needs to be a change.

Jerry



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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