[OPE-L:7459] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: definitely not about Ch. 5

[Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

re 7457

> Rakesh writes, among other things,
>
> > In my opinion, calling me the thought gestapo was an over-reaction.
>
> I hasten to reply that I *did not* call you this, and indeed in the
> next sentence I explicitly state my relief that we don't face such a
> situation on PEN-L.  I reproduce the relevant passage here:
>
> > What I'd be less ready to accept is the prospect of having even
> > tentative characterizations of non-OPE-L'rs work leaped on
> > by >thought-gestapo and fired off to the "offended" parties for
> > comment, even though no offense--or even definite
> > conclusion--were >intended. I'm thankful that we don't face this
> > prospect on OPE-L--it would have a definite chilling effect on our
> > discussions.
>
>  By my own representation you would have qualified for this if you
> were in the habit of forwarding the "offending" posts to outside
> parties automatically, which as you note you specifically refrained
> from doing in this case.  Rather than accusing anyone or describing
> a current situation, I was describing a hypothetical scenario that I
> would oppose.
>
> Apologies for creation of any misperception,
>
> Gil

Well, I did write Albritton to tell him that his work was being
discussed, so I should have initially mentioned that what you are
saying makes no sense to me. Why shouldn't someone be apprised of the
fact that a long harsh criticism of her or his work was presented to
this list? (Of course that person should also be informed of the no
citations policy of the archive, but why shouldn't she have the
opportunity to submit a defense in a public archive?) The reason why
this need not be done in the case of say Roemer or Steedman is that
we can count on their respective points of view being ably defended
by listmembers. This is not the case with Albritton, Wood or Lapides.
So if their work becomes the focus of posts, why shouldn't we
encourage their replies by apprising them of list discussion about
their work (I wish I had Wood's or Brenner's email addresses on this
computer)?
Let's say you were not a member, and an OPE-L'er member submitted a
long criticism of your chap 5 critique as based on total
incomprehension of Marx's method. Would you be mad if I said: let's
make sure to give Skillman the archive web address of these posts so
that he may submit a reply as no one on this list is going submit a
detailed reply on his behalf? See what I mean.

Rakesh