Brad, yes, all participants. Look, the goal should not be to score
points.
I first got interested in computers because I found the computer people so
much more congenial than economists. If I had a problem, their response
was to treat it as "our problem."
I spent a year at Stanford on a sabbatical. I stumbled into a series of
NBER meetings. I was shocked at how ill behaved and egotistical the
"great name" economists were -- Debreu was an exception. They were
constantly interrupting, trying to score points, and belittle other
participants.
You asked by advise (rhetorically, I guess). I said, forgive and forget.
I meant it for "all participants."
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:16:51PM -0700, Brad DeLong wrote:
> >Brad, once a flame war begins, ugly things tend to be said by all
> >participants.
> >
>
> Keaney (one post): "... repeated smart-ass intrusions... deigns...
> self-delusion ...confirmation of prejudice... disciplinary culture of
> condescension... "brilliant" economist... disgusting Schleifer...
> countries about which he knows very little ...red-baiting
> ...preposterous assertions ... produce to order analyses "showing"
> public bad, private good ...how it can enrich me personally
> ...criminal enterprise..."
>
>
> DeLong (across four posts): "*Snort*... Naughty, naughty... He did?
> Funny. I read four paragraphs of his email and didn't find one... As
> I said, if you had arguments to make, you would make them. You
> clearly don't. So why don't you be quiet until you do?.."
>
>
> "All participants"?
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
