[OPE-L:6604] list

From: Patrick L. Mason (pmason@garnet.acns.fsu.edu)
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 23:40:25 EST

Please remove me from the list. Perhaps, I'll rejoin the list at some time 
in the future.

By the way, if people on the list persist in calling for a discussion of 
the Kliman suit you might inform that no such discussion is possible. There 
is a gag order imposed on URPE's editorial board. Any one who goes into 
details on the case can be sued or found in contempt of court or something. 
Anyone who discusses the whether there should even have been a lawyer in 
the first case can be sued.

peace, patrick

At 12:50 PM 2/15/02 -0500, you wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Drewk" <Andrew_Kliman@msn.com>
>To: "Ope-L@Galaxy.Csuchico.Edu" <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
>Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:46 PM
>Subject: Open Letter to OPE-L
>An Open Letter to the OPE-L e-Mail List:
>Contrary to what Terrence McDonough states in OPE-L 6582, my
>lawyer has NOT threatened Gil Skillman with legal action.  I call
>on McDonough to retract his false allegation immediately and to
>apologize for making it.
>It is understandable that McDonough, who is or was a member of the
>RRPE editorial board, is displeased by the recent victory won by
>the supporters of pluralism within radical economics.
>Nonetheless, I would advise him not to repeat the mistakes of the
>For reasons of his own, Rakesh Bhandari has decided to take
>McDonough's false and unsubstantiated allegation at face value.
>In OPE-L 6584, Bhandari calls me "petty and mean spirited to have
>threatened legal action" and asks me to "retract the threat."
>However, neither I nor my lawyer threatened legal action, so there
>is nothing to retract.  I call on Bhandari immediately to retract
>the false allegation he repeated as if it were fact, and to
>apologize for doing so.
>Instead of still more maligning of individuals and gossip about
>individuals, what should be taking place now is discussion of the
>substantive issue, the matter of principle, namely pluralism --
>including pluralism within radical economics.   Had the RRPE
>majority been willing three years ago to engage in open debate
>over its practices and policies, URPE would not be in the mess it
>is in now, and would not be licking its wounds.
>Instead of openly debating the substantive issue, the RRPE
>majority waged a campaign to discredit an individual.  Why?  The
>strategy is a clear sign of authoritarianism.  The policies and
>practices of the Institution are Absolutely Correct, and
>unarguably so.  Anyone who dares to suggest otherwise is therefore
>not just wrong, but mentally unbalanced and guilty of anti-social
>behavior.  Thus the ex-USSR locked its internal dissidents away in
>mental institutions, and thus URPE responded to internal criticism
>as it did.
>  Let us be done, once and for all, with such unprincipled -- and
>ultimately counterproductive -- responses.  Let us STICK TO
>ISSUES, NOT INDIVIDUALS.  Let us all make sure that theoretical
>debate focuses strictly on the assessment of theories rather than
>on the motives, character, and "tone" of one's theoretical
>opponents.   In political debate, let us likewise focus strictly
>upon the practices and policies of institutions, eschewing gossip
>and ad hominem attacks.   If URPE's leadership wishes to defend
>its policies and practices, it should stop trying to do so by
>maligning its critics, and instead encourage open debate and
>*independent* inquiry into the facts.
>  Sincerely,
>Andrew Kliman

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST