[ show plain text ]
Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@Princeton.EDU) wrote:
> In 3791, Ajit argues that he never agreed to the definition of cost price
> as the money sum laid out as constant and variable capital. He then accuses
> me of playing games. This is all quite sad, and evidence that this
> discussion is not being conducted in ethical terms even as I have made
> efforts to grant to him the validity of many of his criticisms. If Ajit
> would simply take the time to consult his own replies to me--as he should
> have before accusing me of playing games-- he will most certainly find a
> post in which he agreed to exactly this (he will find his own post in which
> he copied large parts of one of mine, expressing assent to certain parts
> and criticisms of others). I would hope that an apology is forthcoming.
Rakesh, I do not have time to waste with this sort of nonsense. How can I say
something with which i patently disagree with? The games I mentioned is simple.
To show to you, Fred, and many others on this list, that your arguments are
absurd I have no other recourse than to accept many of your implausible
assumptions and interpretations, particularly the starting points of your
arguments, and then logically show that they lead to absurdity. Then you guys
turn around and say 'see Ajit has accepted our basic starting points etc.' And
I'm now tired of this sort of game, which is basically a waste of time for me.
I have my research work to do. I have tried my best to let many of you on this
list to know the serious weaknesses in your arguments, so that you can improve
upon the quality of your work. If you are not convinced then well, it's too bad
for everybody concerned.
Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT