Oh! My goodness! Monsieur Balter threatens that he will "be
forced" to seek professional assistance if Larry continues to call him
a liar publicly. More bullshit from the self-appointed mediocrity who
absurdly believes he can make people knuckle under with his empty
threats.
Ah! What a modicum of modesty would do for our Parisian pimp!
The fact is that Le Monsieur is not all bad. He just craves more
adulation than is warranted. In truth, in my experience Balter has
lied about me, and then when I called him on it, he took the
pseudo-aloof position that he would have nothing else to do with me.
That's what he dreamed. Adios amigos y amigas --George
On 8/24/11, Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I thought sure that Larry would defer to Michael G's request that this
> thread be stopped and leave things where they were. I certainly had intended
> to do so. But now (see Larry's point no 4) he is again assuring the list
> that he is on a self-appointed "mission" to monitor my posts (he also calls
> me a liar again there; saying that I "lie" means that I am a liar, n'est-ce
> pas?) This is instead of my suggestion, which is that he let me say what I
> want , ignore me, and spare the list the extra aggravation. This can't be
> good, and most importantly, it's not going to stop me from saying what I
> think. So we go around in endless circles. Larry says that I should get used
> to it, but I am used to it, it's been going on for months if not years, and
> has it changed anything? Of course not.
>
> This really is obsessive behavior on Larry's part and he might need to seek
> professional help about it. I will be forced to seek professional assistance
> if he continues to call me a liar publicly.
>
> MB
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Larry Romsted
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Michael (and all):
>>
>> A coda.
>>
>> 1. All the relevant information on the current disagreement between
>> Balter
>> and I is available.
>>
>> 2. Note: In his first sentence Balter claims I called him a liar. I did
>> not use that word this time in the current SftP email exchanges, although
>> I
>> have accused him of lying offline and in the past.
>>
>> 3. I have told Michael in our offline email exchanges that I have
>> concluded that he is attempting to dominate the list by using pejorative
>> and
>> ad hominem attacks on others and at times by heaping scorn on some. He
>> has
>> driven a number of people from the list, so in a sense he has been
>> successful.
>>
>> 4. As I wrote Michael offline (point *3* below): "I have a simple
>> mission. To show that you routinely distort and lie when you characterize
>> others and what they say. Get used to it. Shape up and I will quit."
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>> From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:32:03 -0700
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: I have changed this thread some. Michael Balter`s window.
>> It's true of course that I detest Balter, but for one reason only
>>
>> Please , everyone, stop this thread.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Michael
>> -------
>> Michael H. Goldhaber
>> SftP list moderator
>>
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:05 PM, Michael Balter wrote:
>>
>> It's unfortunate that Larry did not follow his better instincts and
>> refrain
>> from sending his email, because he is simply wasting list members' time
>> with
>> it. But I won't let personal attacks on me go unanswered, especially
>> accusations that I am a liar, which is a very serious charge that I
>> obviously deny.
>>
>> If Larry wants to continue to obsess about me on this list, I guess
>> there's
>> nothing I can do about it. As he said to me privately and now publicly, he
>> is on a "mission" to expose the nefarious Michael Balter. Perhaps he could
>> make a religion out of it. This might be a mission that a few list members
>> could appreciate, but I doubt very many.
>>
>> I said to him privately what I have said to him publicly: Concentrate on
>> making a positive contribution to this list and don't worry so much about
>> what I say. I'm just one person here and I can be ignored if anyone
>> doesn't
>> agree with me.
>>
>> I stand by my characterizations of Sam's comments and also of George's. In
>> Sam's case, declaring without qualification that the leaders of the rebels
>> will sell out the insurrection, something that he cannot know ahead of
>> time,
>> assumes that those leaders are now beholden to the US, France, Britain etc
>> just because NATO helped them win. We have the example of Iraq's Shiite
>> leaders, who were helped to positions of great power by the US war there
>> but
>> are now more closely aligned with Iran, to show that this does not follow;
>> also the case of anti-Soviet forces helped by the CIA who later became the
>> Taliban, bin Laden, etc in Afghanistan. Such a blanket statement shows
>> contempt for the entire Libyan people, as I said, because it automatically
>> assumes that those leaders do not represent the people they are leading,
>> and
>> it automatically assumes that the people of Libya are blindly following
>> them.
>>
>> As I said earlier, no one likes having the full implications of their
>> statements reflected back at them, but there is a difference between
>> allegations that a viewpoint is being mischaracterized and distorted and
>> the
>> much more serious accusation that someone is a liar. Sam was a gentleman,
>> as
>> he always has been, and simply tried to clarify his position on Libya in a
>> subsequent post; it is Larry who is engaging in obsessive invective by
>> repeatedly calling me a liar and trying to "expose" my "lies" (and also
>> George.) It is unfortunate that our moderator does not object to one list
>> member calling another a liar, but if it continues I might have to consult
>> an attorney about it.
>>
>> MB
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Larry Romsted <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> All:
>>>
>>> I want to deconstruct Michael Balter's email below a bit. I thought
>>> seriously about not sending this email, but decided that I must because
>>> the
>>> character of our interaction offline was completely misrepresented by
>>> what
>>> he wrote in his email at about 9 AM this morning. I hope that this will
>>> be
>>> the end of these exchanges between he and I, but I suspect he will
>>> respond.
>>>
>>> When he writes: "As I indicated privately to Larry yesterday, some
>>> people
>>> on this list seem to have formed an obsession with Michael Balter." and
>>> "PS--I hate to have to predict it, but very likely at least one person
>>> will
>>> respond to this message by wanting to talk about Michael Balter again,"
>>> Balter is talking about me beginning at PS, if it is not obvious.
>>>
>>> The word "indicate" in his opening phrase: "As I indicated privately to
>>> Larry yesterday…" suggests Michael was almost pleasant to me. Below are
>>> our recent exchanges in reverse order. The first, *1*, is Michael
>>> telling me I was getting obsessive (but he is not???). I then responded
>>> to
>>> him offline to avoid continuing on the SftP list. After receiving
>>> email 6
>>> (top one), I stopped responding. But, then Michael decided to continue
>>> picking at me, albeit a mild tone, on the list the next day. So, you
>>> can
>>> compare how he addresses me offline "how he indicated privately to me,"
>>> with
>>> how he write on the list. I think it is yet another example of how
>>> Michael
>>> deliberately distorts meaning and is quite hostile. I confess, it makes
>>> me
>>> angry.
>>>
>>> As far as I am concerned his periodic pleasantries are a ruse. I think he
>>> is attempting to dominate the SftP discussion list.
>>>
>>> When he writes:
>>>
>>> "I am proud of my role on this list, and of the fact that I initiate a
>>> significant percentage of the discussions that take place here; but
>>> nevertheless:
>>>
>>> There are supposed to be about 100 members of this list, but only about
>>> 10% of them make their views known or participate actively. That is
>>> unfortunate, and leads to a domination of the list by a small number of
>>> people."
>>>
>>> He neglects the not so small detail that often much of the discussion
>>> that
>>> follows is either about trying to explain to him how he distorts other
>>> people's meaning or telling him he is using smarmy, pejorative or ad
>>> hominem
>>> attacks—again. He also forgets to mention that he is responsible for
>>> driving a number of people off the list, e.g., Cliff Connor, Louis
>>> Proyect,
>>> and others. He has told us at various times how he is proud pushing
>>> people
>>> off. I assume he will try to dry off someone else that upsets him
>>> sometime
>>> in the future.
>>>
>>> Michael: Stop attacking people, address them civilly when you disagree
>>> with them, and send your informative emails and all will be good.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>> ________________________
>>>
>>> Balter's last response to me. Below that are earlier ones in reverse
>>> order.
>>>
>>> *6 *Oh yeah, I'm really shook up.
>>>
>>> You told me long ago you didn't like what I say on the list, so what
>>> makes
>>> you think anything is going to change? Why don't you focus on making
>>> positive contributions to the list and not worry so much about me? Like I
>>> said, you're obsessive.
>>>
>>> MB
>>>
>>> *5 *On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Larry Romsted <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like I have touched a nerve.
>>>>
>>>> I actually regret that it has come to this, but I think it is time for
>>>> you to stop trying to dominate the Science for the People list.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>>
>>>> *4 *From: Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:54:10 +0200
>>>> To: Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: The Great Tripoli Uprising
>>>>
>>>> If it makes you feel better about yourself, knock yourself out. But it
>>>> doesn't change the fact that you are a damn fool.
>>>>
>>>> MB
>>>>
>>>> *3 *On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Larry Romsted <
>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Michael:
>>>>>
>>>>> Off line.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a simple mission. To show that you routinely distort and lie
>>>>> when you characterize others and what they say. Get used to it. Shape
>>>>> up
>>>>> and I will quit.
>>>>>
>>>>> The others understand, although they are probably tired of all the
>>>>> gratuitous crap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry
>>>>>
>>>>> *2 *From: Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:34:37 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: The Great Tripoli Uprising
>>>>>
>>>>> Give it a rest, Larry. You're getting obsessive.
>>>>>
>>>>> MB
>>>>>
>>>>> *1 *On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Larry Romsted <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. You badly distort in your email below what Sam Anderson wrote.
>>>>>> Sam
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "But what is coming is going to be far worse for the masses of Libyans
>>>>>> because these folks are going to put the entire nation up for sale in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> period where the Western Capitalist are in desperate need of
>>>>>> supercheap
>>>>>> human and natural resources. The Libyan progressive forces are NOT
>>>>>> going to
>>>>>> be part of the mix because of the collapse of any form of a global
>>>>>> organized
>>>>>> Left Force to act as a deterrent or counterforce to Western Capital."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You change that to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sam shows his contempt for the Libyan people by declaring that they
>>>>>> are now sure to sell out to Western interests;"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not what Sam wrote but a manipulation of it. Sam's "these
>>>>>> folks" is about the leadership of the opposition in Libya selling out
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Libyan people. I have no idea if Sam is right. I hope not actually,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> who knows. You certainly do not know the future either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. I am waiting for you to: "Reproduce my earlier email that insisted
>>>>>> that no one on the list takes the position of supporting Qaddafi. If
>>>>>> you do
>>>>>> that I will admit I am wrong. If you cannot do that, then stop
>>>>>> mentioning
>>>>>> me with anything that I have not written about and stop instructing me
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> what not to say."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <
>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:07:07 +0200
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: Michael Balter`s window. It's true of course that I detest
>>> Balter, but for one reason only
>>>
>>> PS, and to make things clear--What George is calling a lie is actually an
>>> accurate characterization of what he said and its implications; same goes
>>> for what Sam said. People should not call others liars to cover up their
>>> discomfort at having a mirror put in front of their faces.
>>>
>>> MB
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I indicated privately to Larry yesterday, some people on this list
>>>> seem to have formed an obsession with Michael Balter. I wish they would
>>>> get
>>>> over it and make their own contributions to this list. Larry, who not so
>>>> long ago posted nearly always only to criticize me, has been getting a
>>>> little better lately and occasionally posts original material for
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> George, since he has been back on the list, has posted only on the
>>>> subject of Michael Balter, unless I am forgetting something (if I have
>>>> forgotten, it should not be construed as a lie, but simply a lapse in
>>>> memory.) He, too, seems to have an obsession, which goes back to his
>>>> earlier
>>>> time as moderator when he temporarily kicked me off the list for my
>>>> political statements (which led to a walkout by several list members.)
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, that leaves only a small number of list members who
>>>> actually keep this list going by posting material of relevant interest.
>>>> They
>>>> include myself, Robert, Sam, Mitchel, occasionally Michael G. and Larry,
>>>> and
>>>> no more than a few others. Then there are list members who usually only
>>>> respond to others' posts or participate in discussions once they have
>>>> started; these include usually very interesting comments from Claudia,
>>>> Mandi, Herb, and a few others.
>>>>
>>>> I am proud of my role on this list, and of the fact that I initiate a
>>>> significant percentage of the discussions that take place here; but
>>>> nevertheless:
>>>>
>>>> There are supposed to be about 100 members of this list, but only about
>>>> 10% of them make their views known or participate actively. That is
>>>> unfortunate, and leads to a domination of the list by a small number of
>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> Some people here, like George and Larry, think that I am some sort of a
>>>> problem for this list and seem never to tire of talking about Michael
>>>> Balter. But I am just one person, and I can be ignored, deleted, or spam
>>>> filtered if people don't like what I say and feel that they can't
>>>> tolerate
>>>> being exposed to my comments and thoughts. What would be great is if
>>>> more
>>>> people participated on this list, posted their own materials, and
>>>> engaged in
>>>> discussions. That might help the small number of obsessives on this list
>>>> get
>>>> over their fixation with Michael Balter.
>>>>
>>>> MB
>>>>
>>>> PS--I hate to have to predict it, but very likely at least one person
>>>> will respond to this message by wanting to talk about Michael Balter
>>>> again.
>>>> Nevertheless I hope that some lurking list members will respond by
>>>> participating more actively in providing interesting posts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ******************************************
>>>> Michael Balter
>>>> Contributing Correspondent, Science
>>>> Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>>>> New York University
>>>>
>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Web: michaelbalter.com
>>>> NYU: journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
>>>> ******************************************
>>>>
>>>> “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that
>>>> there
>>>> is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
>>>> --John Kenneth
>>>> Galbraith
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ******************************************
>>> Michael Balter
>>> Contributing Correspondent, Science
>>> Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>>> New York University
>>>
>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Web: michaelbalter.com
>>> NYU: journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
>>> ******************************************
>>>
>>> “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there
>>> is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
>>> --John Kenneth
>>> Galbraith
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ******************************************
>> Michael Balter
>> Contributing Correspondent, Science
>> Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>> New York University
>>
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Web: michaelbalter.com
>> NYU: journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
>> ******************************************
>>
>> “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there
>> is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
>> --John Kenneth Galbraith
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ******************************************
> Michael Balter
> Contributing Correspondent, Science
> Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
> New York University
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Web: michaelbalter.com
> NYU: journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
> ******************************************
>
> “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is
> no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
> --John Kenneth Galbraith
>
|
