Pat  
  
        Re:  "Permit me to end with a suggestion in the form of a  
question. If you do   
        not believe that you are a Mises scholar, then don't you think  
it   
        inappropriate to include a criticism of Mises's work in your  
writings   
        about other subjects?"  
  
  
While I am in sympathy with much of the tenor of your mail to John, I  
must say that it seems a little precious to insist that one must be a  
"scholar" in relation to a subject before one can express a view in  
relation to it.  
  
For example, must I have read *every word* ever written by someone  
before I can express an opinion on his work?  Or is that enough?  Must I  
have produced a *concordance* of the work in relation to that person's  
published and unpublished work?  Or, perhaps, must I be able to  
instantly recollect edition and page number - and library box and  
reference number?   Neither memory nor concordances are perfect...  
  
In any case, the broad contours of attitudes and opinions tend to be  
clear from any reasonable reading of a person's work - and, providing,  
one is open to further input from others who might have read (or  
recollect or investigate) more, I can't see what the problem is.  
  
I find John a perfectly reasonable person (so far!) - though you and I  
may disagree with him from time to time about his opinion of a subject,  
which may or may not be better founded than our opinions.    
  
To ask him to desist from discussing Mises, simply because he modestly  
acknowledges his imperfect knowledge of Mises, is to ask all of us to  
desist from discussing everything.  
  
Prabhu Guptara