> Date sent: Wed, 20 May 1998 07:20:17 -0400 (EDT) > From: Gerald Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Progressive Economics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:132] Re: on the status of the pen-l list > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Proyect's post on this subject is chock full of inaccuracies and > distortions. And his contributions (what Ajit calls "Louis Proyectism") > have come to symbolize the downfall in the mode of discourse on pen-l. > When flames erupt on pen-l (and they erupt not infrequently), they often > begin with strawperson distortions and often out-right fabrications. > > Michael has recently praised Louis and Mark J. This, by itself, is an > invitation to a flame war. Do you have *any* idea who you are praising or > how many people you offend by so doing? An interesting question follows from this: is there a proper way to conduct an argument in the internet? Note I said "argument", and that means debating, disputing, contending, maintaining and so on, which is more than just illustrating, informing, narrating. Clearly in a heated argument tensions are bound to rise. Still, I think it is possible - however contentious the debate - to abstain from personal affront, slander or vile language. I raise this issue simply because I myself have been accused of being hostile, arrogant, even insulting. Yet I believe that my problem is that I have been occasionally too abrupt (brusque), unceremoniously brief. Now, combine this with the fact that I am an outsider in pen-l both personally and intellectually - well, is anybody suppose to like me? Once thing is certain, a few of the more prominent characters here have taken the trouble to debate me - extensively. One of the virtues of the internet is that you have the chance not to hear-read someone with the flick of a bottom. ricardo > > >
