greetings Economists,
On Jan 6, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
if arguments involve matters of appeal to preexisting biases and
style, then they really don't contribute much at all. The lefts that
are left in the US and are represented in pen-l are in big trouble and
deserve better. They deserve clear thinking.
Doyle;
What goal do you think clear thinking is? I don't think you have a
creditable standard for that. I'm not saying this to tweak you, but
to say a 'clear standard' is a kind of production process that we
could use to some goal. It might be that an editorial doctrine of
content so that someone goes out and gets some reportage that might be
x number of words and has to report on something or the other
'clarifies'.
Anyway, the list can't do what you ask of it. Thinking can't be
cleared up in the sense of some sort of argument would give us
something. One can collect data, put that into databases, extract
reports summarizing a method of inquiry, but then this list can't do
that. There is little need of Pen-L for archival purposes, so the
content is time sensitive and the development of content is untenable
in the sense of working back and forth to clean up self expression.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
