Pat,   
  
You stated that "To criticize Mises's economics without understanding his purpose and how
he sought to achieve it is not an appropriate way to deal with Mises" (12/26). Before
this, you also stated "To properly criticize Mises from his point of view, you would want
to compare the effects of these system with capitalism regarding the molding of ends"
(12/22). These statements directed at me were made in the context of a discussion that
included statements you make to other like: "In my view, a failure to approach the work of
Mises -- or of any other economist, for that matter -- by trying to understand the goals
and perceived means of the writer -- represents an approach to the history of economic
thought that has no reasonable defense" (12/22). And, "I demand, before I spend time on
this, that you accept at least provisionally Mises definition of economics" (12/20).
  
I took these statements to mean that, according to you, before a criticism of Mises could
be made, I must accept some (unknown to me) set of constraints that are imposed by Mises'
view of things. After all, you even minimize Hayek's critique by accusing him of
misinterpreting Mises. Consideration of the substance of the criticism is apparently
inappropriate in the absence accepting Mises' definitions.
  
Personally I don't agree with your approach to criticism, but in the interest of trying to
understanding your argument, I chose to ignore my beliefs and attempt to put myself inside
your (or Mises) framework -- "to take the bait and enter your parlor." This offended you
and I am sorry for that. It was not my intention to offend anyone.
  
Michael Nuwer