[OPE-L:5039] RE: The RRPE Controversy

From: Drewk (Andrew_Kliman@msn.com)
Date: Thu Feb 22 2001 - 16:58:59 EST

In reply to OPE-L 5037.

As proof of suppression, how about a report from a referee and
editorial coordinator that says the following in recommending

* value can only be defined at a point in time

* it is inconsistent to measure the growth rate of capital between
two moments in time; the denominator must first be retroactively

* price is a relative concept (only)

* discussion of money and prices in a one-commodity world is
incomprehensible talk

* it is absurd to choose a non-basic as numéraire

...  together with the fact that this report was not disqualified
by the managing editor, the other referees, or the Editorial

How about a report from a different referee who recommended
against acceptance on the basis of the referee's false
mathematical disproof; who acknowledged in print the falsity of
the disproof after it was pointed out; but who concocted another
false disproof in order once again to recommend against
acceptance -- together with the fact that none of this was
disqualified by the managing editor, the other referees, or the
Editorial Board?

I'll be happy to furnish all of this tomorrow.  Just let me know
whether you consider it to be sufficient proof?  If not, please
tell me why not.

If you answer that it is not sufficient proof because nowhere is
there *admission* of suppression on their part, I have to ask why
you require such a standard of proof.  People are convicted of all
kinds of things, all the time, to which they have not admitted.

Andrew ("Drewk") Kliman
Dept. of Social Sciences
Pace University
Pleasantville, NY 10570 USA
phone:  (914) 773-3968
fax:  (914) 773-3951

Home:  60 W. 76th St. #4E
New York, NY 10023 USA

"The practice of philosophy is itself theoretical.  It is the
critique that measures the individual existence by the essence,
the particular reality by the Idea."

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
[mailto:owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu]On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 3:28 PM
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Subject: [OPE-L:5037] Re: RE: Re: The RRPE Controversy

Re Andrew's[OPE-L:5036]:

> Cool.  But perhaps also question-begging.  What would you
> to be proof, Jerry?  Under what conditions would you acknowledge
> that suppression has indeed occurred?

I think that's a fair question. I would consider proof in this
context to be statements (written or verbal and witnessed) from
the editors and/or referees that the reason why articles were
rejected was because they represented a TSSI perspective. Even
better, would be statements that the body in question has a
*policy* of rejecting submissions from TSSI advocates.

Anyway, that seems like a reasonable answer to your question. If
someone else has a better answer, then I am open to suggestions.

What I think is *not* evidence is *just* statistics which show
that x out of y  many articles/reviews from those advocating a
TSSI have been rejected. I reject this as the basis for claiming
suppression because there could be other, legitimate reasons for
rejecting submissions.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST