From: Michael Williams (michaelj.williams@TISCALI.CO.UK)
Date: Tue May 18 2004 - 14:42:39 EDT
Final (I hope) clarification: I am not 'strongly committed' to Jerry staying
on. I merely see no point in fixing something that ain't broken - especially
if there are some costs and negligible expected benefits involved in the
exercise!
michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari
> Sent: 18 May 2004 19:15
> To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
> Subject: Re: Flames and personal attacks
>
> Michael Williams asked
>
> > when I can even understand what he is ranting about,
>
>
> But you snipped out of the post of mine to which you responding the
> following:
>
> > Jerry made mistakes in (a) not admitting a
> >person whose work was the center of OPE-L attention in a time of
> >global crisis (the person was only and immediately admitted after it
> >became possible to appeal directly to the newly constituted advisory
> >committee, i.e. someone other than Levy), (b) in threatening to
> >silence me for replying to insidious insinuations against me, (c) in
> >lying about whether he had threatened to cut me off, and (d) in
> >several times putting the focus on insubstantive criticisms of Kliman
> >and TSS rather than substantive, albeit in my opinion unpersuasive,
> >ones such as your own efforts
>
>
> Michael, I do not think that I am being unclear. I shall not
> explicitly say about whom I am speaking in point a, but that is the
> first time I wanted Levy out. I reiterate the person whom I
> recommended was at the center of not my posts but OPE-L discussion,
> and I was not the only one who wanted him admitted. I am sure you can
> piece it together if you want.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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).
>
>
> As for the group such that it is, think about it: it includes Michael
> Williams, David Yaffe, Simon Mohun, Riccardo Bellofiore, and David
> Laibman. Different points are being made; the group does not have a
> unified perspective, and have different levels of commitment. You are
> strongly committed to Levy remaining coordinator. It's not that I
> don't respect your points. But I'm not denying them either. YOu think
> he has good things. Fine. You think TSS people are to blame. Fine.
> But that does not mean Levy has done no wrong.
>
> Perhaps my prose is punchy, but that's it. I wouldn't want to get in
> fight. Well not at least until after the summer at which point I hope
> to be bench pressing over 200lbs again.
>
>
> >
> >Rakesh - calm down, and tell us (if you must) what is really driving this
> >apparent vendetta against Jerry.
>
> I have, and I did. But you cut it out of the post.
>
>
>
> > 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!
>
> I don't have time either, and for the most part only forward material.
>
>
>
> > >
> >> 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
>
> Well, at some point we would try new things, put new people in charge
> of admissions. Every nine or ten years doesn't seem that much of an
> inconvenience. Perhaps this is creating so much tension because
> people are resisting what should happen. I think some people are
> scared that this list will dominated by neo liberal anti Chavezistas
> or by TSS'ers. That's not what is going to happen.
>
>
>
> > > ...
> >> 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
>
> I asked Jerry to tell us who were the others since he had to unsubscribe
> them.
>
>
>
> > >
> >> ...
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> OK you're right. You have the right to cut out where I address what
> you say I did not address.
>
>
>
> >In this thread you are, instead, alienating responses (has anyone who
> >supports you on the claim that Jerry has been around to long responded?)
> >
>
> Yes. Take a vote. Let's see what happens.
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> >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