[OPE-L:5011] Re: Re: Re: Response to Andrew on "Proof"

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2001 - 12:01:20 EST

Re Alejandro's [OPE-L:5008]:

> Re Jerry 5002:
> >Is there anyone else who believes that I have made a "false charge"
> >Andrew? On- or off-list responses would be appreciated.

To begin with, you did not address this *specific* question. If you look at
the specific post in question [4966], you will see that what Andrew has
labelled a  "false charge"  wasn't even a "charge" at all.

> Jerry: I think it's frequent your posts commenting on Andrew's give him
> very little credit. In fact, sometimes I feel you think Andrew is simply a
> dogmatic and not a serious researcher on Marx's work.

Three responses:

(1)  I have stated for the record *many times* on OPE-L  that I have a lot
of respect for Andrew's intellectual abilities  -- and, depending on the
issue, sometimes agree with him;

(2) I have NEVER accused Andrew of being "dogmatic" or "not a serious
researcher on Marx " . Not only haven't I  stated it, I haven't implied it
either. IN FACT, I have on other lists -- e.g. marxism-thaxis -- defended
Andrew  (and Alan) PUBLICLY from such charges;

(3)  For the record, I wish to add that I have NEVER in this or any other
forum supported the blanket accustation that has been made by some that the
TSSI and its supporters are "dogmatic";

> Your comments to him
> have often a dismissive tone that cannot be welcomed for a person
> researching on these topics for more than 20 years and has an impressive
> record of published and "unpublished" (I'm thinking how many posts has
> Andrew contributed to ope-l!) writings.

The tone for the most recent exchange was set, IMO (and unfortunately), by
Andrew's "PUT UP OR SHUT UP" post to Fred.  It was continued, or perhaps
even escalated, in Andrew's  post about the "evil twin" profit rate, etc.

But, I note that you didn't say *anything* about the tone of Andrew's posts
to Fred being "dismissive".

> However controversial Andrew's
> positions he has stimulated a lot the discussion on value > theory in last
> years.

No doubt. I have NEVER suggested otherwise.

 > This of course is only my personal impression but I'd
> appreciate very much
> if you give some consideration to it.

I welcome your comments even where I don't think they are supported by an
examination of the record.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST