Eugene: >>> That's why I suggest that pen-l disucss cutting working hours as an >>> entrance into open conflict toward an understanding about what'sgoing >>> on./ But Devine ... forbid[s] such a discussion.<<<
I wrote: >> this is not true.<< [I elided other names above, since I can't speak for Henwood or Proyect] Sandwichman wrote: > No, not LITERALLY true. But I would say that certain unnamed subscribers > discourage the discussion, whether intentionally or not, by snide remarks, > dismissive rhetorical questions, tendentious misrepresentations of others' > stated positions, etc. I'm sure this happens on other topics as well. I'm > just more attentive to when it happens on this particular topic.< First, I do not have the _ability_ to "forbid" discussing the idea of cutting working hours. I don't run this list; I cannot launch fatwas. In fact, I don't have the _inclination_ to "forbid" anything except flaming and the like. In fact, I have discussed the idea in question. I think the problem is not my snide remarks: after all I don't make them: I don't aim comments at individual people but instead at specific details of what they say. Tom, I'd like to see some evidence of "dismissive rhetorical questions, tendentious misrepresentations of others' stated positions, etc." What are you talking about? Perhaps it's my poor memory, but the "discussion" on cutting hours always seems to go as follows: 1) person #1: "let's cut work hours! It's a great idea because it shares work among the unemployed, replaces GDP as a source of happiness, etc." [this doesn't do person #1 enough justice, but I can't summarize anyone's position better than he or she can.] 2) me: "good idea, but how do we keep the employers from cutting wages?" [or some other practical problem with the program, trying to get beyond slogan-mongering.] 3) person #1: silence. I get the impression that person #1 doesn't want a discussion as much as to have everyone accept their program as gospel and then go from there. Tom also writes: >But maybe that's too harsh, too. There's also the more serious matter of >non-participation of other folks in the discussion. If there were more people >engaging in a productive discussion, then snide remarks and passive digressive >aggression would be water off the back of a duck.< that makes sense. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
