Both Jim and Doug disapproved of my handling of Andrew's post. My
response reflected the way I saw Andrew's thread evolve on the Marxism
list. If you think that it can lead to a fruitful discussion, then go
ahead. I remain skeptical
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State U
I agree with Doug. Michael, you seem to be rejecting any discussion that's
unpleasant.
At 10:10 AM 10/03/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Michael Perelman wrote:
>
>>Please Andrew, we have better ways of using our time.
>
>In other words, no political debate, please, we're economists?
>
>I don't get what
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Please Andrew, we have better ways of using our time.
In other words, no political debate, please, we're economists?
I don't get what your standards are, Michael. More transparency, please!
Doug
Please Andrew, we have better ways of using our time. This seems to be
the thread that you started on the Marxism list.
>
> I have never said anywhere that we should kill large numbers of innocent
> Afghans. Elsewhere I have said I am categorically opposed to the US going to
> war with Afghani
I have already been hearing resports of intrusive FBI investigations of
people who have had no possible connection with the bombing -- for
instance, a SF branch of the peace group, Women in Black.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:42:20PM -1000, Stephen E Philion wrote:
> I foresee at some point a man w
I foresee at some point a man with a white piece of paper in his hand
stating, "I have here the names of dozens of known Bin Laden supporters
in the White House."
Steve
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Michael Perelman wrote:
> I concur with Jim. We have no need to discuss the bin Laden here,
> expeci