Print

Print


I've talked about me all evening. Post after 
post. Enought about me. Let's talk about you.

(pause)

So, what do you think about me?

---------------------------------
DELETE


At 03:32 AM 8/24/2011, Michael H Goldhaber wrote:
>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 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:54:10 +0200
>>To: Larry Romsted 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion 
>>List 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:34:37 +0200
>>
>>To: 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion 
>>List 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:07:07 +0200
>>To: 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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 
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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:  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>Web:    <http://michaelbalter.com/>michaelbalter.com
>>NYU: 
>><http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>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:  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>Web:    <http://michaelbalter.com/>michaelbalter.com
>>NYU: 
>><http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>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:  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>Web:    <http://michaelbalter.com/>michaelbalter.com
>>NYU: 
>><http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>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





http://www.MitchelCohen.com


Ring the bells that still can ring,  Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack, a crack in everything, That's how the light gets in.
~ Leonard Cohen