Re: [OPE-L] Incoherence of the TSSI - consensus?

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Thu Oct 25 2007 - 11:14:24 EDT

Next message: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] gen equ and sraffa"
Previous message: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "[OPE-L] Walrasian and Neo-Walrasian theories and how the TSSI is an example of the latter"
In reply to: Anders Ekeland: "Re: [OPE-L] Incoherence of the TSSI - consensus?"
Next in thread: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] "Truthiness" and the TSSI"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> my last post on this topic:
> 1) In my opinion it is not correct to say that Kliman "indirectly
> introduced" the expression "defamation den". Because: If Paul Z. just
> had forwarded to the list the introduction to the book - delimited by
> Kliman by ======= in his email to Paul - signalling clearly that his
> first couple of lines were not intended for forwarding - this
> "defamation den" would not have been an issue at all on OPE-L.
===================================================================

Anders:

If Andrew-the-K didn't want Paul to forward his entire message to
OPE-L then - rest assured - he would have complained to Paul about
that afterwards.

In solidarity, Jerry

Next message: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] gen equ and sraffa"
Previous message: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "[OPE-L] Walrasian and Neo-Walrasian theories and how the TSSI is an example of the latter"
In reply to: Anders Ekeland: "Re: [OPE-L] Incoherence of the TSSI - consensus?"
Next in thread: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] "Truthiness" and the TSSI"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:20 EDT