>In pen-l 22914, Eric Nilsson charged that "Andrew Kliman sent me >an e-mail message threatening me with legal action >unless I stop sending messages such as those I have been sending >to pen-l." > >I did not. I sent him an e-mail message yesterday, but it >contained NO threat of legal action. > >This is not an isolated incident. A few days ago, I was falsely >accused on the OPE-L list of having threatened another RRPE >editorial board member with legal action. After I denied the >accusation, and asked for a retraction, it was suggested
by me Rakesh > that no >retraction was necessary, because a threat of legal action had >perhaps (!) been implicit. Implicit in what? In having your lawyer contact someone. Of course a threat of legal action is implicit in having your lawyer contact someone. Do you deny that your lawyer contacted that editorial board member? I also said that I would happily retract the allegation if it was agreed that you did not have your lawyer contact that editorial board member. You call for pluralism, yet in my opinion you caricatured on LBO a couple of years ago Grossman's argument though the theoretical tradition which you are attempting to develop derives from his work. You call for pluralism, yet you recognize anticipations of your arguments only in Dunayevskaya who was beaten to the punch by Grossman, Mattick and Shoul. What kind of pluralism is this--it seems to me to be party work.. You call for pluralism and yet you threatened another list member with better watch your step or some such threat. And then never apologized! You're the one who put this in the gutter, Kliman. In fact you told me that better watch your step is not a threat and cannot be reasonably taken to have been one. Absurd. I am not denying that you have been victimized by a lack of pluralism. I am saying that you do not practice the pluralism that you preach. You are as devoted to your party line as the social democrats are to theirs. You might find that distasteful, but it's not the same thing as showing me why I am wrong. Let your friends Ernst, Freeman, and McGlone tell me that I am being unfair to you. Let Ernst rise to the defense of your caricature of Grossmann; let Freeman rise to your neglect of precursors to your theory other than Dunayevskaya; let McGlone openly defend the better watch your step comment and refusal to apologize for it. At any rate, I did make another criticism of your TSS demonstration to which you are free to respond. Rakesh
