From: Michael Williams (michaelj.williams@TISCALI.CO.UK)
Date: Tue May 18 2004 - 13:49:46 EDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari
> Sent: 18 May 2004 18:06
> To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
> Subject: Re: Flames and personal attacks
>
> Rakesh ... Moreover, Simon Mohun did not speak against
> rotation. Only Michael Lebowitz, David Yaffe and Michael Williams
> have. Moreover, none has reiterated his point in face of my
> criticisms. So they don't seem too strongly attached to what you are
> calling the growing consensus. You want to join that group such that
> it is.
[Michael Williams] This is an old and tedious trick of overexcited romantic
revolutionaries: I made my point, it is there for all to see and to agree
and disagree, but I do not wish to debate with Rakesh about it because he
seems to have a bee in his bonnet about what I consider a matter of little
import, when I can even understand what he is ranting about, and I have seen
no criticism of what I have said, beyond a flat assertion that it is False.
(This is the pub mode of argumentation that leads inevitably to broken
noses: flat statement, followed by flat contradiction followed by physical
violence. Don't tell me this post is rude - I know it is - just congratulate
yourself on having provoked me. ("... that group such that [sic] it is" is
not exactly comradely).
Rakesh - calm down, and tell us (if you must) what is really driving this
apparent vendetta against Jerry. I will be trying very hard not to be drawn
into this thread again - you may have noticed that I have hardly contributed
to any substantive thread for months, so I sure as hell don't have time or
energy for this rhubarb!
>
> We should follow Ian's suggestion. Give people say two weeks to cast
> a vote for rotation or not. This way you don't have to divine the
> will of 80 plus people on the basis of what four or five people have
> said. Then if people are in favor we will cast votes for different
> methods of rotation. If no method can be agreed on, then we stay at
> the status quo.
[Michael Williams] I would go along with a vote, although I am miffed that
this inconvenience should be foisted on us by one person and promises no
tangible gain
> ...
> this is simply a bizarre statement. Who has ever implied that
> everyone who left did so because of anything Jerry said?
[Michael Williams] It may be a slight exaggeration, but you Rakesh listed a
series of people who had allegedly left because of Jerry and more than
hinted that there were others
>
> ...
>
> At any rate, is it really too much to ask that someone actually
> reply to what is being said?
[Michael Williams] Yes it is too much if what is being said is
unsubstantiated, irrelevant, rude, beside the point. Indeed I see no right
for anyone to be responded to: I have raised points to which no-one
responded and have failed to respond to points that might have been directed
at me. That's life Rakesh; you cannot insist on a response, but rather you
have to attract responses by the substance and tone of your contributions.
In this thread you are, instead, alienating responses (has anyone who
supports you on the claim that Jerry has been around to long responded?)
As I say - advanced warning, I do not intend to intervene in this thread
again. I am 62 and life is too short!
michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 19 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT