Jerry, Andrew Kliman's suit, as I understand it, is NOT because an article was not accepted for publication -- but rather is a defamation suit. By the nature of a defamation case Andrew himself cannot repeat the defamation as it would publicizing the negative about himself. Nor do I know it myself. I do understand that he and his lawyer proposed a "settlement" which would not have involved money and they thought a mild enough retraction by URPE. It was offered before a lot of legal costs transpired. Andrew told me that the proposal was rejected by URPE. Paul *********************************************************************** Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka glevy@pratt.edu said, on 08/27/01: >My opinion on the URPE controversy with Andrew K is probably not sought by >anyone, but -- for what it's worth -- here are my very brief thoughts: I >think we can all agree that law suits between different groups and >individuals on the Left should be avoided whenever possible. Having said >that, it is my opinion that whoever it was at URPE who selected the >referees for Andrew's article exercised very poor judgment as there was a >public history between the author and a referee that would suggest that the >referee would give a negatiuve review. Under these circumstances, URPE >should have had Kliman's article re-read by another individual who had no >negative past dealings with Kliman. I suspect that the above will satisfy >no one, but that's my opinion. >Also -- for the record -- I deeply regret Andrew's decision to leave OPE-L >in the Spring. Despite theoretical and other >differences in perspective, I highly value and respect his opinion on the >topics we have discussed on-list. I also respect and value the opinion of >all other current and former subscribers. >Still out sailing. >In solidarity, Jerry >Mattituck, NY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 00:00:02 EDT