Hi Joanna, > > > You accuse me of being an FBI agent and then you say that you "don't > forget whose side" I'm on???
I didn't accuse you of being an FBI agent at all, so that is mistake number one. Specifically, what I wrote to you offlist, responding to your own comment to me in person that you had worked for the FBI in the past, was as follows: quote: "Personally I don't have any problem with you having been an FBI agent, but other people, including the FBI, can get funny ideas, that's all. I'm sure the FBI teaches some useful skills, and, of course, you could also look at it from the point of view of "what can the FBI do for me". I didn't think you were a CIA agent. Mainly, the CIA tends to seek to obtain information and intervene in areas which are not publicly accessible. If there's no secret, there's no secret, what they're concerned with is more things which are hidden. Personally, I am in favour of a world without spies, but it's a bit utopian." unquote. > > You confuse me. I like your postings; I learn a lot from them. But you > also include many personal references in them, and then when I address > stuff you bring up, you get upset and willfully misinterpret what I say. Well thanks. I didn't get upset, merely irritated by the fact, that if you believe you have been misinterpreted, that you don't state how you have been misinterpreted and slither around. What I objected to was your statement that "Using thought to construct a bridge or calculate the progress of an epidemic is appropriate. Using thought to choose a lover or determine how we interact with our friends or our children is not." I expressed my objection quite adequately, I would think. If you then talk about "willful misinterpretation" and impute to me being "upset", you are just trying to shift the blame to me, but it won't work. There is a thought behind what I wrote. The thoughtless hedonism of Americans results in an astronomical aggregate debt level, which dwarfs the third world debt and will brake the world economy for decades. Maybe they don't understand the link to which I refer, but in reality hedonism for some means death for others, in fact the title for Eric Toussaint's book on the debt crisis is appriopriately called "Your money or you life". I have nothing against pleasure, far from it, but pleasure which means death and destruction for others is not something I want to support knowingly. I prefer to think about pleasures rather than get involved in brainless pleasure. I was under the impression in the past that you shared that view. > > But, basically, PEN-L is economics list. It doesn't seem that people are > comfortable with subjects that veer away from economics. It doesn't even > seem that people are comfortable with anyone questioning the basic terms > and assumptions of the trade, so I feel that I am more of an annoyance > than a good member of this list. Yes, but the aegis of PEN-L is a bit wider than ordinary economics, because at PEN-L acknowledges that economics is about people, not simply about how much money you can haggle from others. Let's face it, porn is a multimillion dollar business and a cultural phenomenon, it's quite legitimate to talk about it. I don't normally write personal stuff, but if a personal anecdote is appropriate to make a point, I am happy to do so. All the best, Jurriaan
