[governance] Re: a formal appeal request to the appeal team to reverse the recent ban on a Member

Sat Jan 12 13:38:29 EST 2013

People, as you know this matter is now actively under consideration by the appeals team. As part of that process, we will be calling for public comments in due course. In order to make comments more meaningful to the appeals process, it might be better to wait for that call and respond in that context. We should be in a position to make that call fairly soon.

Ian Peter

From: parminder 
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 1:55 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: a formal appeal request to the appeal team to reverse the recent ban on a Member

I had hoped to stay out of this unfortunate morass. My response to personally nasty people normally is to avoid interacting with them, and this mostly works. But, it is apparent that there are considerable political overtones to this 'morass' and I normally do make the due political response to such political things.

On Saturday 12 January 2013 05:37 AM, McTim wrote:

<snip>

Riaz and Parminder and others throw around tags like "neo-liberal" and
"neo-con" and "American Exceptionalism" Although everything I say here applies to Riaz as well, I will speak for myself especially because I am going to make specific claims and challenge McTim to disprove them. 

The terms you mention. McTim, are very regularly used in contemporary political literature. If we are to disallow these terms from political discussions and discourse then we will have to ban some of the best current political literature, especially coming from the South. 

I use these terms only to refer to set of political views, and that is how these are supposed to be used. I dont use them to label a particular person. In addition, every time I use these terms I go into considerable detail explaining their use. 

On a very very few occasions, I have indeed responded to the use of specific political labels, with a counter-label.... Without exception, and I repeat, without exception, every such usage responds to a specific, personalised reference/ label made by someone. (I understand that there could be considerable sanctimonious advice by some that one can just ignore such labels, but when in the middle of a political contestation there often is a clear requirement - to be effective at what one is doing - not to ignore such a labelling. I welcome a separate discussion on this issue.) 

Having made these claims, McTim, since you have specifically used my name to make an accusation, I challenge you prove my above claims wrong. And if you cannot, then do the gentlemanly thing and withdraw your comments and apologize. 

where they do not apply.
Now, we can hardly go by McTim's judgement as to where terms like neolib and American exceptionalism apply or dont apply.  But, well, you do seem to agree that there terms do apply to some kind of views. That is encouraging. Well, let me repeat the act for what you accuse me - I have not the least doubt that these terms - neolib, US exceptionalism -  strongly apply to some of the views routinely presented on this list. And now that I have  done it again, why dont you seek that I be called for such an insolent behaviour.  

It would be apparent to everyone that the IGC elist is a site of deep  political contestations - which is not necessarily a bad thing . The terms you refer to are central to some of the key political contestations of current times. IF we ban them, then as Carlos says, maybe we can discuss football and pop music on this list. 

  They
are insulting to those who they are aimed at, mostly becuase they are
wildly inaccurate.McTim, as above, you dont seem to be the best judge of the accuracy of these terms at all, but I will take a chance - tell me what is the accurate meaning / usage of these terms. It may help my political learning. 

They don't get called on it, but when SRS says "gleefully posting",
those words get him banned?Characterising political positions, in the middle of a political discussion, with due elaborations, is not to be compared with what has been routine, extra-ordinarily routine, spilling of personal and personalised contempt on this list. No, it was not just the one phrase 'gleefully posting' - which did in fact have no purpose in the concerned email other than to express deep personal contempt - that got your friend called for. And this was certainly not the most contemptuous expression he has made, far from it. In fact it falls quite below his normal standard. The concerned email just capped a series of events that  made the coordinator do what she did. 

parminder 

That's the pattern.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130113/d8b8914a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t