Well pardon me for being a political philosopher. Personally, I learn a lot about possible misunderstanduings, objections, responses, at least from a certain viewpoint. I also find internet discussion groups a poor venue for fact intensive empirical research, but what do I know. I do wish Michael, that you would stop announcing that you find my contributions uninteresting and trying to stop lively discussions in which I participate. Who asked you? If you are not interested, don't participate. i don't horn into threads that bore me and shout, this is borting, will you all please shut up. Why do you? Is it something about me that sets you off?
jks >From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:28998] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : liberalism >Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 08:14:48 -0700 > >Lou expressed my thought better than I did. I would only add that in >these debates nobody seems to learn anything from anybody else -- at >least, you can pretty well predict what the few participants in such >debates will write. > >On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:25:32AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: > > > In much of the discussion here, we get conclusions without the > > supporting facts. This has been true of the Vandana Shiva thread as well >as > > the liberalism/expertise thread. Unfortunately, in the latter case the > > rules of participation would almost exclude facts, etc. because the >context > > is preeminently philosophical. When the discussion revolves around the > > individual versus society, etc., you are entering the vaporous realm of > > political philosophy. > >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 530-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
