[OPE-L:5013] Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to Andrew on "Proof"

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2001 - 13:17:53 EST

"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