Hi Rakesh, >I don't see how pointing to my putative bad behavior in any way answers the question of whether the moderator has offended. It doesn't. These are two *separate* issues. On the question of whether or not Jerry has offended, I prefer not to comment online. Allin's recent statement on behalf of the AC is the right approach, imo. The other question - your behaviour - over which *you* have control, is really *your* business not mine. I simply note what concerns me, in the hope that, as human beings who are also Marxists, we can enjoy each other's company/ideas in future (btw, I *do* usually enjoy yours). >That I may have flamed someone does not mean that someone else hasn't >also flamed someone. Sharing the blame with someone does not obviate his >own blameworthiness. True, but you can't blame *your* bad behaviour on anyone else. >At any rate, I meant to say that disagreement between Jerry and Nicky >over x (moderation) cannot be plausibly attributed to their not being >good friends while disagreement between Jerry and me over x could be >understood to have been motivated by strong (if not nasty) >disagreements over y (the capitalist character of plantation >slavery). In other words, I was attempting to free myself of a >charge of hidden motives, not to flame my good friend Nicky. Well, I hope I made it clear that I object to the way you used *my* name to link two issues. My support for Jerry's right to have an opinion on the content and relevance of someone's work is clearly NOT related to the question of whether or not he is right to distribute a private email. Yet you implied that I supported the latter via my support for the former - and, moreover, you challenged my integrity without any reasonable cause for doing so. On the other hand, I definitely DON'T impute 'nasty' motives or 'hidden' motives to you. I don't impute anything to you. I merely commented on what seems to me a completely inappropriate way of expressing your (legitimate) concerns. I hope you will at least consider the AC's request and take these concerns off-line now, in the interests of all. >[By the way, one of the interesting things about that previous debate >over y was the non intervention by Michael P who after all argues >that... Great, lets get back to debate. best, Nicky
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:07 EDT