Print

Print


To:  Michael Goldhaber:

You have my support in terms of putting Michael Balter on moderation because
he doe not get ad hominem and pejorative language or arrogance and how
detrimental it is to discussion, especially vigorous discussion.  However,
if he controls his language, what he submits is sometimes interesting
because his positions/ideology is so different from many others on the list.
Such disagreement is healthy.

I also fail to hold my temper at times, especially when it comes to what
Balter writes, so I request you put me on moderation as well if I fail
again.  I will, however, not quit the list.

I would be very interested in discussing a SftP radio show on Pacifica.

Larry Romsted

On 8/15/10 4:03 AM, "Michael Balter" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Lighten up, Michael, I think Carrol can take it--he's a revolutionary, after
> all, and should be made of tough stuff.
> 
> As you know, if you put me on moderation I will quit the list. That would make
> some people happy, but not everyone.
> 
> MB
> 
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Michael B:
>> 
>> I  have asked you repeatedly to avoid ad hominem comments. You keep doing it,
>> much more than anyone else. Below, you are quite nasty to Carrol. I assume
>> you don't indulge yourself in this way in articles  that you write for
>> Science, so you it seems likely you possess the skills to understand the
>> difference. I am very tired of having to ask over and over not to do this.
>>  If you cannot avoid saying "exactly what  [you] think here" I will
>> reluctantly, at long last, have to put you on moderation, no matter what
>> objection you make.  
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 14, 2010, at 2:34 AM, Michael Balter wrote:
>> 
>>> I wanted to follow up on this comment by Charlie, which, as I said
>>> yesterday, came at an odd moment--when I had posted an article that I think
>>> dealt with a serious subject. Perhaps because mart responded to it (also in
>>> a serious vein, I think) it reminded Charlie of less interesting repartee
>>> between mart, me, and others, and he chose this moment to comment on it.
>>> 
>>> I think that list members should accept that I will continue to say what I
>>> think on this list, mart will continue to express himself in his inimitable
>>> way, Robert will continue his campaign against every gene in sight, etc. But
>>> this list is what the members make of it, and in fact a lot of the posts,
>>> especially from Phil (despite my disagreements with him on many things, his
>>> posts are the backbone of the list) and even me who often posts articles
>>> without comment, are very useful and relevant. There is nothing to stop
>>> Charlie, a hero of the science for the people movement, from posting
>>> material of interest including about the struggles he is involved in, and
>>> yet we never hear from Charlie except very occasionally to complain about
>>> what others are posting; likewise from Carrol, who is just an old sourpuss
>>> anyway and unlikely to contribute anything useful it seems. Likewise from
>>> others who would have much to say, like Larry, and even the great majority
>>> of Herb's posts mainly consist of complaining about what I say on the list,
>>> which again is unfortunate as Herb is one of the most sensible and eloquent
>>> presences here.
>>> 
>>> Nearly all of the initial posts on this list come from me, Phil, Sam,
>>> Robert, and a couple of others (I'm not counting mart because he mostly
>>> responds to what others say.) Perhaps most list members just want a quiet
>>> life and just want to read articles or be kept informed thanks to the
>>> material posted by us few, but if so then it is inevitable that those who
>>> want to express their personal views here, even when they are "provocative"
>>> or annoying to many, will dominate. Again, I have no intention of stopping
>>> saying exactly what I think here; but I don't want to be one of the very few
>>> doing that, and the list would be much more interesting if more people would
>>> participate and take initiative.
>>> 
>>> MB
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Charles Schwartz <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> What I see on this list from mart and from Michael (B) is an unending
>>>> stream of very personal babble. I don't want to deny them their necessary
>>>> outlets, but I must ask, Why do I bother to read (any of) it?
>>>> 
>>>> Charlie
>>>> 
>>>> mart wrote:
>>>>> if one googles 'chris knight' (in wikipedia) he is the founder of a
>>>>> radical anthropology group (and i think also lost his academic position in
>>>>> the uk for some comments and role he had in g20 protests in the UK).  he
>>>>> also has a take on the evolutuion of language which is basically a big
>>>>> critique of chomsky (including chomsky's article with hauser in science).
>>>>>  i find it much more convincing than chomsky's approach (which seems all
>>>>> dressed up in hype with actual little rigor   much less reference to
>>>>> empirical data).  there free journal online has an interview wuith chomsky
>>>>> though i just skimmed it---and they go through their skepticism.
>>>>>    s bowles (once a 'radical economist') and gintis also have gone through
>>>>> this kind of stuff.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --- On *Thu, 8/12/10, Michael Balter /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     From: Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>     Subject: engaged anthropology
>>>>>     To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>     Date: Thursday, August 12, 2010, 2:19 PM
>>>>> 
>>>>>     List members might find this profile of U of Utah anthropologist
>>>>>     Polly Wiessner of interest. She reflects an increasing trend in
>>>>>     anthropology, sometimes called engaged anthropology, to become
>>>>>     more closely involved with research subjects--indeed, to make them
>>>>>     active collaborators--and to make their welfare paramount. This
>>>>>     viewpoint, which rejects notions that active involvement with
>>>>>     subjects compromises scientific objectivity, is also associated
>>>>>     with an activist and advocacy role for anthropologists. The recent
>>>>>     revolt in the American Anthropological Association against the use
>>>>>     of anthropologists in Iraq and Afghanistan is an example of this
>>>>>     attitude; and it represents, finally, the throwing off of the
>>>>>     lingering effects of McCarthyism's devastating attack on the
>>>>>     field. All these issues are discussed, albeit briefly, at the end
>>>>>     of the piece.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     MB
>>>>> 
>>>>>     --     ******************************************
>>>>>     Michael Balter
>>>>>     Contributing Correspondent, Science
>>>>>     Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>>>>>     New York University
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Email:  [log in to unmask]
>>>>>    
>>>>>  <http:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>     Web:    michaelbalter.com <http://michaelbalter.com/>
>>>>> <http://michaelbalter.com/>
>>>>> 
>>>>>     NYU:    journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/balter.html
>>>>> <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/balter.html>
>>>>>     <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/balter.html>
>>>>> 
>>>>>     ******************************************
>>>>> 
>>>>>     "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask
>>>>>     why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." -- Hélder
>>>>>     Pessoa Câmara
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>>