>A reply to OPE-L and OPE-L 745.
>
>Gil writes: "I would have thought that the 'question-begging'
>charge had been laid to rest by now, if nothing else as the result
>of my response to Andrew's paper (as yet unanswered), in which I
>showed that Andrew's 'interpretation' makes*exactly* the claim
>that I'm criticizing Marx for."
>
>Given that Gil has been diligent in responding to everyone else, it
>seems that he either did not receive, or misplaced, my OPE-L 705. I
>certainly DID answer him in that post, which I will reproduce below.
Ahah. Shame on me, I *did* miss Andrew's post. I circle back and respond
to it, and then address the new issues raised here. Gil