Jesus Christ, that's two things where I agree with Proyect. The other being Celine Dion.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Why the peak oil debate is through > 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. >
