Paul Z:
> Sorry, Alejandro, now I see the "banning" and I agree with no
> "banning"! I interpret your post as a not unwarranted sarcasm; am
> I right?
Alejandro:
Yes, of course. I find ridiculous these attempts to "filter" research
(collective) work. Sarcasm seems better in these cases.
Unfortunately, my English is not enough to deal with these
"complex" situations and then you (and other people) could think that
I was "joking". I was not.
I agree with the "common sense" expressed by David L.:
"no one wants to "ban" anything, that investigations in CAPITAL
and investigations beyond CAPITAL are ongoing and intertwined."
I am not sure, however, about David's opinion that "Paul Cocksott was
joking the first time around."
To save a post I want to reply Jerry's ope-l 4308:
> Re: Ale Rs [4303]: You suggest that it is "pathetic" that no one
> responded to [4258]. Ale -- many on the list have raised topics for
> discussion that havent caught-on. Its happened to me -- many times.
> (This should not be interpreted as being "pathetic." Rather,
> listmembers may have been interested in other topics and/or
> otherwise engaged with such minor matters as work, family,
> writing, political activism, life, etc.
Thanks! Of course I understand what could have happened. What seemed
pathetic to me was NOT that no one responded but to re-ask
listmembers about this problem. So, what seemed pathetic was myself!!
In any case, I have to study your *substantial* comment.
Alejandro Ramos M.
7.3.97