Re: A reply to Michael Albert

[Joseph Green <comvox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Troy,
        Ooops. I should have sent him my notice with the URLs and subheads for both
articles, but after seeing his reply, I assumed he had received that. My fault. Well,
when I posted yesterday's first instalment of "A reply to Michael Albert", I
simultaneously forwarded a copy to him (and another to Robin Hahnel). That also has,
at the end, URLs for both articles.

        But I would note that he also ignored a lot of the material in the article on
parecon structure that he did examine, and then complained that the conclusions
came out of nowhere. He seems to have been in a hurry.

             Joseph Green
             comvox@xxxxxxxxx

From:                   troy cochrane <troyc001@xxxxxxxx>
Subject:                Re: [PEN-L] A reply to Michael Albert
To:                     PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Joseph, let me say that the reason Michael wouldn't have responded to your overall assessment is because I simply forwarded him the URL in your original post and that URL led to the critique of the structure of parecon.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>