Rob writes:
>Yeah, but it does get frustrating when you write odes to diversity, putting
>'voice' at the very centre of the role of media, cite sources, critique
>methodology, empirically refute the 'results', suggest alternative approaches
>to the issue etc - and your interlocutor [Brad deLong] ignores it all and
>then tells the
>world you're siding with the very embodiment of 19th century repression and
>autocracy! Brad's language wasn't harsh (indeed he's usually a beaut read),
>but deliberate misrepresentation (to let it pass as a misreading of so many
>clearly written posts is to do so intelligent a man an injustice) and then
>accusations that we're "taking sides with Metternich" (!!) - well, that
>strikes me as naughty enough to warrant just a little indignation.
>
>I mean, what's a coke-sniffer or a political dyslexic compared to a
>Metternich?! I reckon Michael and Jim showed admirable restraint, myself.
As far as I'm concerned, Brad is a useless member of pen-l, despite or
perhaps because of his exalted academic status. At this point, he is better
at stimulating flame-wars than he is at intellectual debate. In general, I
find it useful to debate with orthodox economists (because I know a lot of
their stuff and find that they often don't while sometimes I learn
something), but Brad currently is filtering my messages, so debate is
impossible. I sometimes feel I have license to insult him (as with my
"political dyslexia" remark, which is pretty mild) -- because he doesn't
read the insults.
But mostly I try to avoid flaming as much as I can. The problem is that
Brad seems to deliberately provoke people on pen-l, though he doesn't use
explicit harsh language or explicit insults. He seems quite sectarian in
his style. As Michael Keaney suggests, Brad may also be participating in
pen-l in order to confirm his prejudices against the left. He clearly
doesn't aim to promote the development of radical or leftist or socialist
political economics.
Now, I don't think that Brad should be expelled (though maybe that guy
who's going on and on about eonics might be expelled). Rather, I think
Michael Perelman should ask him to clean up his act. Remind him that the
point of pen-l is dialogue.
Heck, in the spirit of non-Christian charity, I have a proposal, for the
kind of mutually-beneficial exchange that neoclassicals love so much. In
exchange for stopping his filtering of me, I will never insult Brad in any
way. However, I will continue to trash neoliberalism, the IMF, Andrei S.,
Lawrence Summers, and the ignorance of neoclassical economists. I know that
this proposal -- like all individualistic "solutions" -- won't solve the
structural problems of Brad's presence on pen-l, but at least it would make
my participation marginally more pleasant and useful.
The problem with this proposal, of course, is that Brad can't read it!
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
