At 21:01 25/09/97 -0700, Fred wrote:
>
>I don't care whether OPEL archives are open or not. That
>is why I have not paid much attention to this procedural
>discussion. I am quite happy to have the archives open.
>But I think that they should not be quoted without
>permission from the author - in other words, treated
>similar to draft papers. This should provide sufficient
>protection for those who want to preserve the looseness
>and informality of our discussions - including myself.
>
>Just to briefly give my version of the "incident" to which
>Andrew refers at last year's IWGVT. I do not know why
>Andrew says that "personally attacked" him. I criticized
>his interpretation of Marx's theory, as I have on many
>other occasions. Why is this a "personal attack"?
>Specifically, I said that I have presented substantial
>textual evidence on OPEL that Marx assumed that
>constant capital - both the stock and the flow of constant
>capital - is valued at current reproduction costs, not at
>historical costs, and that Andrew had not responded to
>this evidence and I asked if Andrew would respond to
>this evidence at that time. Andrew has interpreted my
>comments as implying that:
> I was unable to rebut his thoroughly devastating
> evidence demolition of the TSS interpretation,
> that I now knew my views to be false, and that I
> illegitimately continued to voice them although I
> knew they were false.
>But this is not what I said, nor was it implied. I do not
>expect to convince Andrew that his interpretation is
>mistaken, although I think it is. I simply said that
>Andrew had not YET responded to my evidence and asked
>him to reply to it then. To which Andrew replied that I
>was out of line for referring to OPEL.
>
>Was I out of line?
__________
How can Andrew accuse you of being out of line when he himself cites ope-l
in published work. See the recent RRPE foot note 6. Now, who knows the
interpretation he has put on the discussion he referrs to is correct or
not? Nobody can rebutt it since no name is given.
I myself don't much care about the archive issue. Though I would favor
keeping it open. I have slight problem with Duncan's proposal though. If
people are not quoted or cited by name then you have no way of rebutting
the interpretation put on what you might have written. In my understanding
people are usually misinterpreted. Therefore, I would prefer the idea of
taking permission from the author to quote or cite with proper
acknowledgement. So that the author could rebutt if he/she differs with the
interpretation put on it. Cheers, ajit sinha
____
Because I care so little about this
>issue, I confess that the question never occurred to me.
>Even if it had occurred to me, I don't think I would have
>concluded that the closed nature of the archives implied
>that OPEL could never even be mentioned in public.
>Referring to OPEL on this occasion was a kind of
>shorthand. Rather than going back over all the textual
>evidence I have presented, I just referred to it. Was this
>out of line? I don't think so. But if so, then all the more
>reason to open the archives, with the condition stated
>above.
>
>Comradely,
>Fred
>
>
>