Re: (OPE-L) Re: Advisory Committee

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Mon May 17 2004 - 19:12:26 EDT

>Rakesh continues to dig his own hole.


>>  The point is that you would never have accepted an advisory committee
>>  if others were not quitting and Paul Z had not made it a condition
>>  for staying.
>That is _not_ the point.  Far from it.  What Alfredo proposed was something
>that I wanted for years.

Oh really. Sure. If you say so.

>   From the very beginning (1995) I have emphasized
>that we are a collaborative group and I welcomed Alfredo's proposal
>because it was consistent with that belief.  Had Alfredo or any other
>list member made a similar proposal years beforehand then I would have
>welcomed it.

Oh sure. Why was admission to this group handled without any
transparent procedure. So as not to embarrass two members each of
whom is internationally recognized for brilliant scholarship--they
are beyond being embarrassed--why did it take months if not more than
a year  to have admitted people who I recommended for this list? I
never knew why it was being held up, but it is something that you
controlled in secret. In fact you rebuffed my first effort to have
someone signed up whose work we, ie. not just I, were already talking
about on the list. You said that it would not be appropriate at this
time. If people on this list knew what the time was and who the
person was, they would be aghast, I am sure.  It was at least several
months later that this person was even asked to join by the OPE L
administrator, viz. Levy. And I later found out that at least one
other OPE-L'er had urged months before as well that this one person
be asked to join . The point is that you never did explain to me why
the invitation was held up. You weren't accountable to me or anyone
from what I can gather. As I said, the frustrations have built up
over time.

>   Of course, I'm happy that Paul Z stayed.  But, that is most
>definitely _not_ why I supported Alfredo's  suggestion.

Sure. We often don't know ourselves as well as others do.

>More laughable claims follow:
>>  After
>>  Kliman had quit the list you went on to call Kliman a gardener,
>Reference please?

Oh, that whole controversy about why you thought people had trouble
with him. You know what I am talking about. Nothing of substance was

>>  commented on the title of his paper
>*Entirely* legitimate in context.

Nothing of substance was added in the discussion. It seemed that
Ernesto and he were flinging some ad hominems at each other. But
discussing the title was not substantive, and showed poor judgement
in a putative moderator. Moreover, you said nothing about Ernesto's
language about which Phil D apprised you. Nothing moderator-like. As
for substance you have not added to your views on TSS beyond your
criticism of the V=0 assumption. That was years ago.

>>  and forwarded his criticism of the Brecht forum.
>Which he ASKED that recipients forward!!!

So what?  I am sure you get all kinds of things with requests to
forward. The question is what did it add to this list. Nothing of
substance. What does this add to our substance to the critique or
evaluation of TSS.  Nothing.

>Kliman: "So please do FORWARD the article and URLs ...."
>(emphasis in original).
>Now how crazy is this ???  Kliman sent ME a message asking that
>recipients forward his message.  I  then did as HE requested and I
>am now somehow accused of violating him!

Not violating him. There was nothing of substance in that message
relevant to value theory debates on this list.

>>  Give it up.
>That's my best advice for you.

Thanks for the advice.

>In solidarity, Jerry
>PS: > soon my first baby.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 18 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT