From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Nov 26 2006 - 04:52:47 EST
>Jerry, I regularly read your posts which I continue to >find informative and thoughtful, at times a welcome >challenge to my own ideas. I guess it's a hazard of >unmoderated lists that some members will not >appreciate the expression of views that conflict with >their own, but instead CONSISTENTLY use the list to >distort the arguments of other members. > Imho, one is >not obliged to defend oneself against such nonsense. >Further, in my experience, the best way to deal with >unwanted correspondence and/or harassment is to mark a >repeat offender's email address as "spam". Nice to hear from you, Nicola. I'll just pretend you're reading... This policy must have started after your many replies to our discussion about value form and slavery. I think in that exchange Andrew Brown who agreed more with your conclusions than mine reminded you that you were not actually making counter-arguments. Perhaps you didn't want to respond to what you thought I was saying in fear that you may distort my arguments. And with that in mind... You do not say how I have distorted Jerry's argument. That is, you do not make an argument regarding my challenges to Jerry's descriptions of primitive communism as a social form of which non human animals are capable (and wow you're in Australia--one would hope that you were sensitive to Jerry's phrasing, but maybe not) or the observing of dolphin rape. There is in fact nothing substantive in this post regarding the actual issues. Now to get to the real issue: You may remember that I was not the only one who challenged your request that OPE-L members sign on to you Zimbabwe petition which highlighted the plight of white plantation owners on the basis of false information that mass of black Zimbabweans agreed with you! So in that case the so-called distortion was hardly my own; indeed I followed Julian Wells and Paul Cockshott in their skepticism. But hey why not lay it all on me? Rakesh > My browser >automatically deletes Rakesh's contributions before >they enter my mailbox. In short, I uphold his right to >express any opinion that he wishes to express; at the >same time I exercise a choice neither to read nor talk >to him. >In solidarity >Nicky > > >--- ope-admin@RICARDO.ECN.WFU.EDU wrote: > >> > Well all this is so appropriate in the week that >> Michael "Kramer" >> > Richards outed himself. >> >> Folks: >> >> * Is there ANYONE on the list OTHER than Rakesh who >> believes that the >> above, and similar statements which were recently >> expressed, are not >> examples of personal abuse? >> >> * Is there ANYONE else on the list OTHER than Rakesh >> who believes that >> I have said _anything_ racist on this list? >> >> * Is there ANYONE on this list on this list OTHER >> than Rakesh who >> believes that I have in any way suggested _anything_ >> which is sexist on >> this list? >> >> * Is there ANYONE on the list who OTHER than Rakesh >> who does not see >> that his most recent posts are a form of harassment? >> >> * Is there ANYONE on the list OTHER than Rakesh who >> does not agree >> that harassment of a listmember is personally >> abusive and hence a >> flame? >> >> In solidarity, Jerry >> > > >Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST