Where are the outbursts of anger in the discussion? Or rather, mis-directed outbursts?
Proyect posted Greenspan-- I attacked Greenspan, not Proyect. Shemano has offered us more than once exercise in sophistry and an imaginary racist in a real racist world-- I critcized Shemano, his imaginary racist, and his, and ours, real racist world. Interestingly enough, I used some pretty harsh language in that discussion, appropriately harsh I believe, and there were no warnings, yellow cards, cease fires issued. Leigh asked me exactly what I thought the causes of the invasion of Iraq were-- I answered as best I could, attempting to avoid the mousetrap of peak oil debates. Gene posted on the upward revision of gas reserves. Interesting point, and fits into the "up and down" bi-polar disorder of markets, market prices. I honestly don't know how anyone could think "economics oriented folks' attention in our current historical phase" can be examined without actually looking at the economic determinants of that "current phase." Michael knows he can unsub me at will. That's not a problem for me.My objection is solely that if that is his intent and desire, then he say it and do it, and cut the adolescent "time out" "probation" crap. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doyle Saylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] USA has more gas that was thought > Greetings Economists, > On Sep 16, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Michael Perelman wrote: > > > to refrain from posting for 2 weeks. > > > Doyle; > I wouldn't call this total bs, but simply the limits of what > distribution lists can do in email. If Michael didn't regulate > arguments and bursts of anger then people would or tend to get > polarized in this format. Other forms like wikis tend to regulate > these adventures in human emotion structure too so that people can > collaborate. This list is not really a collaboration but an > exploration of some aspects of what has caught economics oriented folks > attention in our current historic phase. The conversations tend to > superficial because the format is not geared to depth processes of > collaboration and work goals. > > We are still at the beginning I fear in creating interactive tools of > knowledge creation that really would free us from the limits of what we > have to use now. Michael does a good job in a hard situation. Please > cut him some slack. > Thanks, > Doyle Saylor >
