Re: rough draft for changes at pkt

[Goncalo Fonseca <fonseca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My vote:

I will stand with Bill M. in considering any sort of formal restriction,
tentative/temporary or not, to be intolerable.   A code of civility may
be posted ocassionally if some of us barbarians on the list cannot
resist to urge to put in our two cents everywhere, but anything further
than that would be unacceptable.

For all it's worth, (although some might disagree), I would argue that in
fact, comparatively speaking, we have been reasonable.  As Bill notes,
when the discussion is hot, the postings are many; when it's not, the
postings are few.  It's unavoidable.  That's the way it should be and I
think we are all better human beings for it.

[This does not mean that because I have been rather scarce lately, I
haven't found the discussion hot.  I just found that many of the points I
sought to make had already been more perfectly made by others.  In the
particular case of Davidson's seminar, I believe I had already exhausted
my points on it earlier this year and, furthermore,  I found that
Barkley Rosser, Steve Keen and Arnold Chu basically stated the basic
points I hoped to make far more concisely than I ever could - and Paul
D.'s response was equally well-directed.]

Cheers,

Gonzalo Fonseca
New School for Social Research
and The Johns Hopkins University

P.S. - I don't know if we should exhort the maintenance of subject
headings.   Many times, discussions lead to ancillary discussions or
bifurcate into several issues which should be distinguished.  (e.g. the
recent Koppl-Burns discussion of "misbehavin' markets" stemming from the
Davidson seminar.  Had we kept the discussion under "Davidson seminar",
the response sequence would not have been as clear.  I suspect this is
why so many tend to replicate large segments of the post to which they are
responding to).