Re: Garden Party

[Robert Ages <yu132844@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Friends:
Being now in the last term of my undergrad work I have not had time to
pay close attention to the discussions on the list; I do however try to
at least briefly scan them. I have noticed - and it is one of the
reasons I have not made extra effort to fit PKT into my study schedule -
that the skunks are back at the garden party and with them the tone and
usefulness of the list has declined considerably.

The union movement from which I come has a long history and experience
in dealing with agents provocateurs and the damage they can cause.
Clearly the academics on this list, or at least a good number of them,
share a naive confusion between scholarly dialogue and sabotage.

The internet is and should remain a free space for open communication.
In line with this PKT is not a moderated list. Ric has neither the
authority nor inclination to censor inappropriate messages. It is
therefore up to each individual who shares the purpose of the list to
exercise discipline and self-restraint in the interest of all others -
contributors or sincere lurkers.

There are a couple of people who obviously do not support the purpose of
this list or respect its guidelines for participation. They simply want
to provoke supporters of PK economics into multiplying the volume of
messages whose net effect is to turn people away from the list and
serious and useful discussion of heterodox economics. Unfortunately,
from the growing length of the digest I receive daily, full of
right-wing nonsense, flaming rebuttals, and personal attacks going both
ways, they are succeeding.

I won't get people upset by naming names. You know who you are or you
know who they are - depending on whether you are one of us or one of
them. :-)   But, may I heartily and sincerely request, that the
participants on this list who support or at least sympathize with
post-keynesian economics join in isolating and immunizing those with
clearly ulterior motives. Do not, I repeat, do not, allow yourself to be
provoked into continuing this useless and sterile "dialogue". Without
your participation the couple of "skunks" cannot write enough in a day
to do serious damage by cluttering up the list - even if they upload
opuses the names can be recognized and the entire message deleted or
scanned through in seconds.

In conclusion, I have hesitated to intervene since in a way it is
precisely the opposite of the recommendation I make above - that is
becoming part of the diversive problem. However, I felt compelled to
make this one plea as the problem seems to be growing rather than dying
down on its own.

If the quality of the discussion does not improve I will not intervene
again but simply un-subscribe - as I suspect many others like me will as
well. Unfortunately this is exactly the purpose of the "skunks" or
provocateurs. But you cannot blame a skunk for being a skunk, that is
their nature - the problem is with those who fall for their ploys and
provocations.

Please, give some serious thought to this and exercise self-restraint.
When you sit down to compose a message, or before you send one, ask
yourself: is this a contribution that would inspire one of Bob's
classmates who is just becoming exposed to economic thought to look to
post-keynesianism as an alternative to the standard fare they are
exposed to and will get more of in grad school? If not - dont!

Warmest regards,
Bob Ages

p.s. if you feel compelled to comment on this message, positively or
negatively, please send messages to me personally and not clutter the
list with more discussions about discussions about discussions. Let's
get back to real world economics.