The south Korean Federation of National Student Councils
(Hanchongryon) representing one million south Korean post-secondary
students, even though banned and declared a "communist and north
Korean spy agency," has resumed its activities throughout the south
with great support from the students
The news media in south Korea stated Monday that the trials of 440
college students arrested in August would begin shortly. The media
spoke of "tight court security that has been substantially beefed
up in five separate courtrooms." Tension is said to be extremely
high as there is growing
Just to add a couple of points to Max's about the regressivity of the tax
code:
sales tax is a flat tax, and the poor pay more than the wealthy in two ways
on sales tax:
1. the poor consume all of their income, and, up to relatively high levels
of income, 'dissave' (using a keynesian term) at
At 10:14 AM 10/19/96, SHAWGI TELL wrote:
...yet another diatribe.
Shawgi Tell, if you made some effort to converse with the people on the
lists you post these screeds to I might feel a little different about them.
But as it is, it just reads like spams. One tedious pronunciamento after
another.
(y)M*W=(y)D
M=money
W=work
D=debt
y=percentage of income spent on consumption
If one cancels the y out, then all the money earned at work goes to debt. If
one does not work, one does not incur debt. (HA)
maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Doug Henwood wrote:
At 10:14 AM 10/19/96, SHAWGI TELL wrote:
..yet another diatribe.
Shawgi Tell, if you made some effort to converse with the people on the
lists you post these screeds to I might feel a little different about them.
But as it is, it just reads like spams. One tedious
I hit the delete key every time I see Shawgi's messages, primarily because I
hate being preached to -- even if there is a vague chance I might agree with
the message. However, It is getting very, very tiring having to monitor my
entire message list for possible shawgi's before reading said list,
Treacy: And then we have:
Summation sign IOU'S=Summation sign UOME'S
If you both sides of the equation by O and U you are left with:
Summation sign I's=Summation sign ME's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] copyrighted
On Sat, 19 Oct 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(y)M*W=(y)D
The political agenda set by the rich focuses attention on one policy or
another, but never proposes that we examine the whole system--its economy,
politics, culture, etc. Most people have experience with the fact that if
you try to put a bandaid on a problem that requires surgery, you will
dear comrades,
i seem to have a different opinion from a few of you in regards to postings
by S. Tell. I enjoy reading about strike activity, south korean progressive
movement, NATO politics, and some of the other things that S. Tell
posts. Despite the use of certain adjectives that highlight
Given the large number of communications that I have received, both
privately and on pen-l, I have asked Shawgi to discontinue posting to
pen-l.
I do not take these decisions lightly. I realize that we are walking a
fine line, but I continue to hold to the idea that pen-l is a space that
should
I just saw Susan's note. I had hesitated to take action with Shawgi
because I suspected that some people would feel like her.
I did not act on the account of Stalinism. In fact, I agree with most of
what Shawgi wrote. I had received positive feedback in person from Sid's
postings, which I
As I understand it, PEN-L is an interactive DISCUSSION list, NOT a
unilateral BROADCAST site.
I have no problem if someone who broadcasts, as does S. Tell, wants to
inform us where her/his work can be found on the WWW every now and then for
those few who might find this stuff interesting and
At 10:10 AM 10/19/96, Michael Perelman wrote:
I just saw Susan's note. I had hesitated to take action with Shawgi
because I suspected that some people would feel like her.
I did not act on the account of Stalinism. In fact, I agree with most of
what Shawgi wrote. I had received positive
Re Susan Fleck's comments:
To accuse Michael Perelman of Stalinism re the Shawgi Affair is to abuse
the term Stalinism and devoid it of its historical and political meaning.
Jerry
On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Michael Perelman wrote:
Shawgi, based on a consensus, I am going to ask you to stop posting to
pen-l.
I am sorry. I hope that you understand.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail
Susan wrote among other things.
Shutting off Tell is being as Stalinist
as a Stalinist. Requesting a self-imposed limit on postings/day for all
members may be a more civil way to address the problem,(unless the
anarchists among us decide to oppose such a rule!)
Count me among the
As a relative newcomer, and possibly perceived as an interloper, I'll just
register the following opinion: In the primary bastion of capitalism, we
still have the First Amendment, even for the terminally dull and tedious.
In the land of the terminally dull and tedious, there is a lot of room
I for one would object to Shawgi Tell's postings being barred from PEN-L.
I don't read them all; very few, in fact. And much of the information
can be picked up from other left sources. But not all. There is hardly
anyone else, for example, keeping us posted on the pending Toronto
shutdown, a
So far two people have spoken up for the usefulness of Shawgi's postings,
several for freedom of speech, and several notes of appreciation, both
public and private.
I wish that I knew a better way to handle such matters. Bill Mitchell was
correct to point out one factor, that most of his posts
Shawgi, if indeed that is your name (both revolutionaries and reactionaries
seek personal anonymity, the better to conceal their goals), I had not
seen your above-captioned post when I responded to M. Perelman's notice
of "invitation to cease-and-desist" because some folks find you tedious.
On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Bill Moore wrote:
Shawgi, if indeed that is your name (both revolutionaries and reactionaries
seek personal anonymity, the better to conceal their goals), I had not
seen your above-captioned post when I responded to M. Perelman's notice
of "invitation to
On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Michael Perelman wrote:
So far two people have spoken up for the usefulness of Shawgi's postings,
several for freedom of speech, and several notes of appreciation, both
public and private.
Suppose only *one* did, or suppose *no* one did; would censorship be less
I do not consider the question about Shawgi to be censorship. I
personally do not find his postings objectionable. On subjects that do
not interest me I can easily delete them.
Some people do pay by the message. Others pay for the time that they
spend on the net.
My interest here is not in
24 matches
Mail list logo
