>Let us put the pomo discussion to rest. More harm has been done than >information shared in the last posts. > >For newcomers, we have put discussion of Israel on hold, for similar >reasons. > >The personal is not political, at least as far as this discussion has >gone. > >I guess we can conclude, that some people feel that pomo has furthered >their political work; others, that it is irrelevant or even a >distraction. > >Let the pomos pomo and the others go their own way; let 1000 floowers >bloom. But enough of the insult and innuendo. > > >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 916-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael, I agree with the halt to insult and innuendo, but I see no reason why we shouldn't continue discussing the pros and cons of pomo. The majority, or anyway quite a good number, of posts have been entirely civil, unobjectionable and thought-provoking. A bit of edge (like most of Jim Devine's humor, in my opinion), is not a reason in my book to cut off discussion or even debate. So, are you requesting tolerance and ordering a time out or may I, as I get time, try to relate my sense of the three books I mentioned as examples of accessible, political theory based on pomoish insights? Blair Blair Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
