Re: (OPE-L) Ernesto's "Damned Lies" ?

[Gary Mongiovi <MONGIOVG@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the question of how we argue with one another, how we construct our discourse, is legitimate.  My understanding of Gerry's original post on the topic was that he was curious about the context of AK's piece, what had motivated it etc.  The point about the title was a legitimate collateral issue.  But of course Rakesh is right that it would be desirable to discuss the content of AK's paper when that becomes available.
 
GM
  

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: OPE-L on behalf of Gerald A. Levy 
	Sent: Tue 2/17/2004 3:58 PM 
	To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: (OPE-L) Ernesto's "Damned Lies" ?
	
	
	Rakesh wrote:
	 
	>>>
	I'm also not quite sure why our "moderator" decided to call attention to Kliman's paper title as the list was discussing the relation between logic and history and the oil industry. Now we are discussing Kliman's paper title without any knowledge of its contents or the contents of the paper to which it responds. Levy's unhealthy fixation on Kliman--no one was discussing him before Levy brought him to our attention again--seems to disqualify him for moderation. <<<
	 
	Oh, really .... Does anyone else on the list besides 
	Rakesh share his perspective that I should be 'disqualified'
	as "moderator" ???  (NB: I'm not asking for Rakesh's 
	opinion.  He has already given it.)
	 
	>>>
	It was certainly an unwise choice to bring to this list's attention Kliman's paper title only for the purpose of levelling accusations against him. <<<
	 
	There was no "accusation" leveled against him.  The
	title of the paper speaks for itself.  
	 
	In solidarity, Jerry