Jim Devine wrote
> the basic rule is that we are Michael's guests here. It's his salon.
> He sets the rules.
Michael,
Is this correct? This is not an URPE list? I had thought it was but I
wasn't in at the beginning.
The 9-11 discussion involved a lot of different people (I only posted
about one a day for a few days) so the only 'rule' you described in your
post of yesterday doesn't at all fit: "One type of thread that I cut off
is when it tends to revolve around the particular interest of one party."
Do you want me to list all the different people who have participated on
one side or another on the substance of the 9-11 issue, begining with Jim
Devine's posting about KSM, including but not limited to put options
before 9-11, our comrade from Turkey who was thrown out of his country for
questioning Ataturk (I believe he meant), several who argued that the
evidence points to the role of persons connected to the U.S. government
and several who dismissed this conspiracy theory and supported the Bush
conspiracy theory, and at least one who doesn't accept any conspiracy
theory (presumably even of Osama's involvement).
I'm having the feeling that your personal theoretical position is
interferring with your managerial capacity. Can we work toward
democratizing process (it won't be easy)?
Thanks, Paul Z.
************************************************************************
(Vol.23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 "a benchmark in 9/11 research"
(Vol.24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA AND IN POLAND & SYRIA, forthcoming
Research in Political Economy, P.Zarembka,ed, Elsevier hardback
********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
