[PEN-L:6805] Re: pen-l

["James Michael Craven" <CRAVJM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date sent:      Sat, 19 Oct 1996 13:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
> Send reply to:  pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From:           Walter Daum <WGDCC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject:        [PEN-L:6791] Re: pen-l

> I for one would object to Shawgi Tell's postings being barred from PEN-L.
>
> I don't read them all; very few, in fact. And much of the information
> can be picked up from other left sources. But not all. There is hardly
> anyone else, for example, keeping us posted on the pending Toronto
> shutdown, a subject which ought to be of interest to progressive
> economists.
>
> Walter Daum

I join in this sentiment. We all have a different style in presenting
and reacting to ideas. I read some of Shawgi Tell's missives and
regard each one as a form of communication to which I am free to
reply by hitting the return function thus creating a dialogue. When
he has been personally attacked, he has refrained from personal
invective and response merely asking the rhetorical "Why or on what
basis do you argue this?".

In the response to Shawgi it was said that he was being asked not to
post on pen-l on the basis of a "consensus" which means on the basis
of common agreement. I for one do not agree and furthermore do not
appreciate my vote being cast by anyone but me. You may say perhaps
on the basis of a majority, but that too would beg the question: on
the basis of what type of mechanism or process was this "majority"
determined.?

Who knows the reasons for someone's passions and style of interaction
or style of presenting ideas. I know some victims of the Nazi
Holocaust who are very unrefined and very dogmatic when they are
confronted with revisionist histories of the period and what can one
say unless they have walked a mile in someone's shoes--which we can
never really do.

I have seen on this list individuals jumping through mental
gymnastics and engaging in outright mystifications as they explore
the subtle nuances of what I personally consider to be a totally evil
and bankrupt paradigm--neoclassical "economics"--and engaging in what
I personally consider to be "third derivativing off" as they form
ignorant caricatures of opposition paradigms. But that's just my
opinion and when I chose to express it I will and of course expect
replies from those who do not share that opinion.

I find this particular summary expulsion to be repulsive. Not because
I am particularly in agreement with all of the content in Shawgi's
missives but because I have never seen him address counter-responses
through other than reasoned and measured responses.

Perhaps a mere suggestion to limit posts--for all--to a given number
per day or per week might be the answer rather than this type of
summary action.

                              Jim Craven

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  James Craven             * "The envelope is only defined--and   *
*  Dept of Economics        * expanded--by the test pilot who dares*
*  Clark College            * to push it."                         *
*  1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * (H.H. Craven Jr.(a gifted pilot)     *
*  Vancouver, Wa. 98663     *                                      *
*  (360) 992-2283           * "For those who have fought for it,   *
*  cravjm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx     * freedom has a taste the protected    *
*                           * will never know." (Otto Von Bismark) *
*                           *                                      *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *