I just got to this one. Look. It is fine to dispute penners' ideas, but you should still be respectful. We don't need to set off any flaming.
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ravi Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:10 AM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Krugman critiques Obama stimulus plan On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:06 PM, Jim Devine wrote: > Julio: >> Blah, blah. > > I'm sure Michael Perelman will chime in here, but I want to reinforce > his point. This kind of sectarian response ("blah, blah") is > inappropriate to pen-l. If we want to have a serious discussion, we > need to criticize people's logic, consistency with perceived empirical > reality, and method (what considerations they leave out). Mere "yah > yah yah -- yer mother's mustache!" responses don't help at all. I am not so sure... given that arguments are as much a matter of appeal to various biases (perception, ideology), personality and stylistic elements (and so on), as logic, empirical reality etc, a good (i.e., fair) set of ground rules would impose different standards on feuding sides based on which one of them enjoys the benefits of the above [LHS] factors. Given that PEN-L constitutes the purist left (IMHO), I believe Julio's opinion (and robust defence, often running to multiple virtual pages, of guarded optimism w.r.t Obama) deserves a lot of leeway, lest we lose content in pursuit of form. Whether such leeway applies to responses such as "blah, blah" I will leave for MP to decide. --ravi _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
