"Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com> said, on 02/21/01: >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. For myself, I see Andrew as attempting, in a direct, unequivocal form, to get Fred's attention for Andrew's concerns, not just Fred's concerns. Andrew doesn't always want to return Fred's serves; he wants Fred to consider his [Andrew's] serves as something other than constant "default" serves (returning to the tennis analogy). Which of us have lived in Andrew's shoes?: "Of the last 8 manuscripts submitted by proponents of the TSSI to the RRPE (not ROPE), 1, a paper of mine on the Okishio theorem, was accepted. 5 have been rejected, including a *book review* written by an author with a publication list longer than your arm. (The RRPE's rejection rate on book reviews is only about 10%.) What about the remaining 2 manuscripts? Oh, they were returned without even being sent to referees." (OPE 4990) >But, I note that you didn't say *anything* about the tone of Andrew's >posts to Fred being "dismissive". Andrew has three against him (Fred, Jerry, Rakesh) and only himself formulating his position. The last thing Andrew needs is yet another attack. Thus, I welcome Alejandro's intervention. I have sympathy with Andrew, not because I understand clearly TSSI (nor even less Fred), but because one of my theoretical projects is -- as his -- "against the current". In other words, he doesn't make feel comfortable and we learn from that. Paul Z.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST