Greetings Economists,
On Jan 6, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
I think that Doyle is talking about something completely different
than I am. Unless convinced otherwise, this is my last contribution to
this fruitless sub-thread.
Doyle;
This is the classic example of what is wrong with Pen-L. You label
this as a fruitless sub thread. That disses me in an 'emotional' way
since I have tried to answer you in a non attacking way. I don't have
to answer anything you wrote in response to my last response which
might be of interest but if and only if it fits the narrow confines of
permitted discussion here. Your attack on irrationality is an
adherence to a form of communication that is 'enlightenment'
influenced impossibilities. Bias can't be worked out of the
discussion. The arguments can't go on without emotional energy. the
functionality of discussion is really based upon irrationality as you
call it. What I object to is attacking people, and the more or less
goal less discussions that don't accomplish much. The lack of real
working relationships between people to accomplish something besides
showing off clear thinking.
Anyway, doesn't mean I don't appreciate your replies. Thanks for the
last come back anyway.
yours,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
