[OPE-L:6714] Re: Re: *Internal Discussion Document*

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 11 2002 - 14:01:53 EST

I am very sorry to see Alan go--now that Alan and Duncan are gone, 
OPE has lost two of its most brilliant truly Marxian contributors 
whose early exchanges were as stimulating as anything I have ever 
read in Marxism cyber space. Gil is also exceptionally stimulating 
but his loss does not damage the project of the development of 
Marxian political economy (and one still gets to rid Gil at pen-l). 
Alan's and Duncan's departures do.

Friendly relations had broken down; Alan wanted to organize the 
destruction of the list and Jerry did not then honor Alan's wish that 
his internal document in which said intention was explicitly stated 
remain unseen by the rest of us.

Paul Z writes:

>1) When you received the mis-sent email, you had the option of using the
>'delete' key.  You didn't.  You didn't post it either.  Rather, you
>offered us 'bait' to ask you for it.  I did NOT ask and will not ask as I
>don't like this kind of thing.  Nevertheless, was the original email
>sender told TO WHOM you have forwarded the mis-sent email (or is he or she
>to be left forever in the dark as to whom in the world has received the
>mis-sending and who hasn't)?

Alan did discourage Jerry from circulating this internal discussion 
document in part because he thought it may be prejudical to the 
intended recepients, but did in no uncertain terms tell Jerry that it 
was his decision as to whether to circulate it. It was clear however 
that Alan would have preferred that Jerry did not post it to the 
list. I know this because Jerry forwarded his offlist discussion with 
Alan to Allin and me.

Alan wanted to organize a boycott for the list, it seems to me, 
because Jerry would not accept Andrew K's demand that Jerry apologize 
to Andrew for having breached his security. Jerry said that he would 
accept Andrew back on the list-- as Jerry first and I later 
recommended--if a. Andrew simply asked Jerry and b.Andrew told Jerry 
privately that he Andrew agrees to the list rules as long as other 
list members are so bound.

I had been one of the OPE members who thought that Andrew should have 
to apologize for his better watch your step comment or simply for any 
misunderstanding that had resulted from it. But Jerry did not care 
about this, so I saw no reason why I should.

Alan agreed that this was a reasonable compromise for it seemed to 
involve no loss of face for anyone.  Jerry told Alan to have Andrew 
carry out.

For reasons I do not understand, discussion broke down. Alan 
suggested that Andrew had already carried it out, but Andrew seemed 
to me to be asking for an apology from Jerry while Jerry was not 
asking for an apology from Andrew.

It seems obvious that Alan wanted to organize a boycott of the list 
by the TSS school and Jerry thought the list should know. Alan's 
boycott threat was not friendly , and Jerry's circulation of a note 
that Alan would have preferred remained private was not friendly.

I suppose that Alan will take my discussion of this on list as 
unfriendly, but I have nothing but admiration for Alan as well as 
John E and Paolo. I have learned a great deal from Andrew and have 
said so on the internet and even in published form. I do not 
understand why he did not take the compromise that Jerry, Alan and I 
allthought was reasonable?


>2) Do you agree with Alan's request that this whole thread be kept off the
>list's archives ("I request the archive coordinator to remove all
>references to this correspondence from the archives...")?  If not, why
>Paul Z.
>P.S.  Please do NOT send me that mis-sent email in any type of reply.
>Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at                
>********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST