Michael Perelman wrote:
I got this from a valued, long time member:
These are issues that should engage left economists. The superficiality
of the debate on pen-l is discouraging. I will continue to monitor
pen-l on the archives, but unless the level and the content of debate
improves I will not be resubscribing.
Although I have high regard for Michael Perelman and for pen-l, as I
tried to make clear in my blog about H-Net, this kind of complaint is
heard far too often here. For all I know, there are probably around 500
subscribers to pen-l, many if not most of whom are long-time radical
academics. But on the evidence, very few them bother to post. They treat
pen-l as a kind of spectator sport for which they don't pay a penny. And
when they get bored or annoyed with the entertainment, they threaten to
quit or do quit with this kind of "thumbs down" on the discussion. What
the hell are we supposed to make of this kind of veiled blackmail? Who
the hell has the right to demand that the level and content of the
debate "improves" without contributing themselves? There are two
possibilities about the person who has written to Michael. If they are a
deep lurker who has never posted on "peak oil", I say they have no right
to complain. You have to lead by example. On the other hand, if they
have been participating in this thread and now make up their mind to
quit pen-l because the other participants have not been up to their
august level, I also say to hell with them. But I seriously doubt that
the latter is the case.
The bottom line is that I am sick and tired of these kinds of
abjurations to Michael. If the list had more participation from those in
the know, he would not have to intervene in the discussion as above.
Over on Marxmail, Mark Lause had this take on deep lurkers on H-Net lists:
Certainly anyone should be free to sniff indignantly at whatever anyone else
says. I've no real problem with who's subscribed, or the moderated nature
of the list or even who might be made to feel unwelcome on them.
Rather, the problem was that the H-Net lists never really discussed much of
anything. H-SHEAR (the Early American Republic) initiated (at least from
what I encountered) an interesting experiment in "interactive book reviews."
The review was posted, the author responded, and the floor was opened for
discussion. This failed to generate much discussion during the time I was
on that list, however.
In other words, the structure of these lists mirrors the inexplicably
hierarchical nature of academe. If the norm is to defer to one's
"betters"--and you can't get the visual cues to tell who that is on
email--the default position is almost always dead silence.
Let's take care that the default position on pen-l is not dead silence
as well.
