glevy@acnet.pratt.edu (glevy@acnet.pratt.edu)
Wed, 31 Jan 1996 14:00:46 -0800

[ show plain text ]

Andrew asked:

> Could someone please clarify how the expression "cards on the table" is
> being used? I had one idea--that people disdain to conceal their aims,
> as the CM puts it--but Gil seems to have used it in a different sense.
The origin of the expression comes from Alan's _long_ post #779 on
January 11. Here is the relevant part:
"If the feeling on the list is that we should continue working through
Capital looking for questions to answer then I accept that though I
continue to disagree with this procedure. But at the same time, let us
schedule a series of contributions from list members in which they
attempt to explain, in 2.000 - 5,000 words, not just one conclusion from
a project they consider important, but the project itself. Then let us
agree that list members will undertake to consider these contributions at
leisure (rather than producing instant responses) and provide, where
possible, assessments and critical reactions: off-list or on-list as
Alan then goes on to suggest that these materials be made publicly
available as the first "product" of OPE-L. On this last point, no one has
commented and I have my doubts personally about the wisdom of the idea.
However, the above "cards on the table" suggestion seems to make a lot of
sense to me and can be done over time.

Hope this answers your question, Andrew.

In OPE-L Solidarity,