(OPE-L) Ernesto's "Damned Lies" ?

From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 09:43:39 EST

Re: (OPE-L) Ernesto's "Damned Lies" ?Hi again Phil.  I had a longer version of the following 
butI edited it to ensure that the focus stays where I
think it should remain.

> I have not seen Andrew Kliman's paper so I cannot 
> really comment on title selection. 

It's the *title* of the paper which is so damning (excuse 
the pun). By picking that title any possible discussion 
of the article contents (good or bad) is -- almost inevitably 
-- blocked  and the focus of discussion then is (and should
be) re-directed to the title itself.  It is thus a self-defeating act.

Had someone who was critical of the TSSI  written an
article directed at an interpretation of Marx by a TSS
supporter named  'Omega'  entitled  "Lies, Damned 
Lies, Omega's Critique of Marx",  would you still have to
see and read the paper before commenting on title

Whether I agree or disagree with Ernesto is really besides 
the point.  There is an important political point here related 
to solidarity.  And, btw, had there really been an 'Omega' 
and had someone written an article with the title above, 
then I would have called the attention of the list to it.  The 
issue here is more important,  imo, than disputes over 
TSS vs. SSS interpretations of the quantitative aspects of 
Marx's theory.

> I do not agree with either the orthodox theory or Screpanti's, 
> but that is irrelevant.  It is the charge of incoherence that - 
> I would guess-  would attract the 'Damned Lies' bit.  

One can have a mistaken interpretation of Marx, but that
doesn't mean that *lies* are being spread.  And here I differ
a bit with Riccardo who suggested that Ernesto spread
lies but not "damn lies".  In the English language to say 
that something is a lie is a much stronger statement than 
to suggest that someone's perspective is mistaken or in 
error.  I don't know Ernesto personally, but I find the implication 
(and how else could one read the title as suggesting 
anything other than this?) that he is a *liar* to be *highly* 
offensive and objectionable.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 00:00:01 EST