Don't close it down, we are allout here listening in. And when need and
opportunity coincide, I am sure each of us will contribute. I'll send a
summary of my long review article on John Rosenthal's new book when it is a
bit more polished.
Michael
"Books are Weapons"
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 12:58 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:432] stagnation
>* In December, there were 53 posts.
>
>* In January, there were 21 posts.
>
>* So far in February (including this post), there have been 7 posts.
>
>While December and January have been traditionally slow for this list (due
>to the holidays, breaks in academic schedules, conferences, etc.), this
>season they were unusually slow.
>
>Our volume lately would be slow for just about any list. However, in our
>group -- which has been for most of our history a *very* high volume
>list -- this stagnation should give us cause for concern.
>
>I have been purposely laying low in the belief that you were able to raise
>issues for discussion without my prompting. We are, after all, supposed to
>be a collaborative undertaking and the agenda and postings shouldn't be
>driven by any one member.
>
>Now, however, I think it's time for action.
>
>We have several options:
>
>1) re-ignite discussion. E.g. do you have a paper or issue that you think
>is important for us to discuss? If so, now would be a good time.
>
>2) make some changes to OPE-L. E.g. add some new members (the downside to
>that might be an increase in volume *beyond* what we had when we were
>previously high volume). Or, e.g. we could organize a seminar around some
>specific topic that listmembers are interested in (perhaps we could even
>invite some who are not on OPE-L to participate [only] for the duration of
>the seminar). Or, maybe you have some other suggestions?
>
>3) Thank everyone for participating, congratulate each other, recognize
>that we have had one of the best forms on Marxist political economy
>*ever*, and then shut the list down.
>
>Obviously, 1+2 are preferable to 3. But, if we can't do 1 and/or 2, then
>we should seriously consider doing 3.
>
>What do you think?
>
>In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
>