Print

Print


All:

Michael posted the following two paragraphs on August 16, 2010:

³I remember when I first came on this list too, about 3-4 years ago or
whatever it was (maybe longer?) This list was largely dominated by posts on
9/11 conspiracy theories and AIDS denialism, and a battle had to be fought
to put that in its place. I was kicked off the list briefly during that time
for the strong stance I took, and Phil himself quit the list in protest at
that purely political move by the then moderator.

³I remember how appalled I was that the once influential Science for the
People had degenerated into a listserve that so regularly featured such
nonsense. Those days are largely over, and as I said before, the list is
what its members make of it. Nobody is stopping a larger number of list
members, including its women members, from participating and shaping the
nature of this list. If they did, then the posts of allegedly "abrasive"
list members would take their proper proportion and percentage of the total.
And if people were not attacked personally for their political views, that
would help a lot too.

MB²

Please decide for yourselves if Michael took pride in cleaning up this SftP
list when he wrote ³a battle had to be fought to put that in its place²
where ³that² means ³a list was largely dominated by posts on 9/11 conspiracy
theories and AIDS denialism.²   I don¹t think that is true actually. Michael
fought this battle largely on his own and resulted in people leaving this
list, including at least one whom I remember was not a conspiracy theorist
or AIDS denialist.  Their departure is what I meant by ³driving people of
the list.²

Is what I wrote ³driving people off the list² slander?  A misrepresentation?
True?

Finally, about a week or so ago Michael offered to send me the email in
which he says I called for his expulsion from the list.  I asked him for a
copy of that email in a off-list email.  He never sent it.  I do not
remember writing that I called for his expulsion, but my memory is not
perfect.

In any case, I have not and am not calling for his expulsion now, so the
baseless fear he expresses below about my gather evidence is just that.   I
am simply calling on him to stop sending irrelevant emails.  I get no
science edification from what Marc Cooper writes.  If people want such
emails from Michael, he can send privately.

So, I will note Michael¹s irrelevant emails by numbering them.  Quite
polite, non combative, commentary I think.  Just numbers.  1, 2 3, etc.

Larry


On 8/30/10 1:41 PM, "Michael Balter" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> To say that I take pride in "driving people off this list" is a slander at
> worst and a serious misrepresentation of what I have said at best. I made
> clear that I was happy that certain topics are no longer current, such as AIDS
> denialism and 9/11 Truth, but never said that I had tried to drive anyone off
> this list nor that I was happy anyone had left. Repeat it once more, and it
> will be a lie.
> 
> I do wish that Larry was capable of simply responding calmly to posts he
> disagrees with without trying to gather evidence for my own expulsion from
> this list, which is what his counting exercise seems designed to do.
> 
> MB
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>> Michael:
>> 
>> For someone who takes pride in having driven people off this list, your
>> concern about fair treatment rings hollow.
>> 
>> Notice that I critiqued Cooper not you and that I noted that you and I agree
>> that fate of Pacifica is important to the left.  Nevertheless, the Cooper
>> post has no place on the Science for the People list as far as I am
>> concerned.
>> 
>> I have taken up this irksome task of counting because I feel that you win
>> hands down in terms of number of posts not relevant to the list.  But to be
>> fair I am keeping count.  If balance concerns you, keep count of the others.
>>  We can watch the numbers grow together.
>> 
>> Larry 
>> 
>> On 8/30/10 12:42 PM, "Michael Balter" <[log in to unmask]
>> <http:[log in to unmask]> > wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm happy if my post about Pacifica generates discussion, but I'm not sure
>>> what the counting of my supposedly "irrelevant" posts
>>> accomplishes--especially when they are being counted by someone who feels it
>>> is appropriate to respond to them, and especially when the "irrelevant"
>>> posts of other list members--need I name names?--have never been counted
>>> before.
>>> 
>>> MB