What I said is that I don't care. Drop it. Don't bother the list with
old hat. I would rather than you engage in constructive dialogue.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 11:53:54AM -0700, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I don't care now about who did what when
Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I don't care now about who did what when. The list was going quite well
> until you revived this vituperation. It must cease immediately.
Michael,
since you are blaming me for the vituperation, you obviously do care who did
what when. And you are
I appreciate the reply, Doug, though I don't think it's fair as to what I have
already written. Unfortunately because you ignore that I have to repeat myself.
>
>
>
> It's clear from these repeated characterizations that you know
> nothing about the movement, except maybe what you've pi
I don't care now about who did what when. The list was going quite well
until you revived this vituperation. It must cease immediately.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 02:13:40AM -0700, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I do not want to have to keep monitoring
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> henwood referred to those who characterize the anti sweatshop movement as
> protectionist as bourgeois hacks--to this you do not object!
Hmm, the first version of this was labeled "offlist," as was this
response, initially. But since turned out not to be, neither will
Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I do not want to have to keep monitoring this thread. It is a bad time
> for me. This sort of sarcasm has no please here. Please stop!!!
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:55:19AM -0700, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> >
> > Ah so someone like Kabeer is a b
I do not want to have to keep monitoring this thread. It is a bad time
for me. This sort of sarcasm has no please here. Please stop!!!
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:55:19AM -0700, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
> Ah so someone like Kabeer is a bourgeois hack like Friedman? Hmm. What do you
> think s
Henwood wrote:
Student anti-sweatshop activists are opposed to
> protectionism and to boycotts.
Well they may not recognize as protectionist what other trade unionists do.
Moreover, the students don't seem to have yet put this to a vote or put it in
writing. They haven't formally repudiate
Stephen E Philion wrote:
>If I read the last series of posts a few weeks back from the USAS mtg.
>correcdtly,
>one thing stood out re: strategy, namely the intent to work on sweatshop
>struggles that unions are currently engaged in, be they in the States or
>abroad. In your schema, the US unions
Stephen E Philion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If I read the last series of posts a few weeks back from the USAS mtg.
> correcdtly,
> one thing stood out re: strategy, namely the intent to work on
sweatshop
> struggles that unions are currently engaged in, be they in the States or
> abroad. In
Please, one of the no-no's on the list is demanding that someone answers
another's "challenge/question, etc.".
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 08:20:08AM -0700, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Liza Featherstone & I have both decided that it's best not to respond
>
If I read the last series of posts a few weeks back from the USAS mtg.
correcdtly,
one thing stood out re: strategy, namely the intent to work on sweatshop
struggles that unions are currently engaged in, be they in the States or
abroad. In your schema, the US unions and/or college based anti-swea
Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Liza Featherstone & I have both decided that it's best not to respond
> to Rakesh's posts, which seem motivated more by personal hostility
> than genuine political content. Please don't mistake our silence for
> assent.
>
> Doug
My posts can't be mot
Liza Featherstone & I have both decided that it's best not to respond
to Rakesh's posts, which seem motivated more by personal hostility
than genuine political content. Please don't mistake our silence for
assent.
Doug
14 matches
Mail list logo
