[PEN-L:2354] Re: Judith Butler, etc.

[Rosser Jr, John Barkley]

Jerry,
    But, gee, Louis has confessed to all of us his bad 
behavior.  We now know that he was drunk at the LM 
conference, by his own admission, and that he skipped 
crucial sessions because he was in his room reading, by his 
own admission.  So, we can all see what his behavior was 
and judge for ourselves.
     Why doesn't this satisfy you?
Barkley
PS:  Congrats on finally opening the OPE-L archives.  
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 06:56:43 -0500 (EST) Gerald Levy 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Reply to Michael P:
> 
> a) I did not re-raise this issue. Proyect did when he revealed his drunken
> behavior, etc. at the "Rethinking Marxism" conference.  Blame him.
> 
> b) There was nothing in my post that could fit any reasonable definition
> of a flame.
> 
> c) The *reason* this issue won't go away is because it is a legitimate one
> to raise.
> 
> d) You say that Proyect is a "valuable member" of PEN-L. THIS WAS
> GUARANTEED TO EVOKE A RESPONSE FROM ME. How is Proyect "valuable"? Is he
> valuable when he libels the late Paul Mattick Sr. the other day? Is he
> valuable when he sends us *daily* doses of *SPAM*  Yes, spam.
> Posts that have *nothing* to do with PEN-L, were authored for another
> list, and are sent here as junk mail. Is this "valuable"? (I won't even
> bother going into Proyect's other "valuable" contributions here -- like
> the time he engaged in and later admitted to outrageous sexism on this
> list). BUT, MICHAEL, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. If you don't want us
> -- anyone on this list -- to say anything to or about Proyect, fine. I
> can live with that. But, if you  have praise for him, then you MUST expect
> and allow those with a contrary perspective to be heard.
> 
> Jerry 
> 

-- 
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]