At the risk of prolonging matters, am I the only one seeing the irony of this?

"Brad´s response raises an important issue: the legitimisation of discourse with the taint of argumentum ad hominem.  Mises and in his own way Keynes were enemies of civilisation in this context: by posturing as Defenders of Civilisation they encouraged their followers to believe that the rules of civil discourse should no longer apply for "the duration"."

In the course of complaining about ad hominems, Robert has smeared Mises, Keynes, and their "followers" with an ad hominem of his own.

BOOT!

Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Leeson
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 2:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Backhouse and Bateman, "Wanted: Worldly Philosophers"

Brad´s response raises an important issue: the legitimisation of discourse with the taint of argumentum ad hominem.  Mises and in his own way Keynes were enemies of civilisation in this context: by posturing as Defenders of Civilisation they encouraged their followers to believe that the rules of civil discourse should no longer apply for "the duration". Equally, one (non-ideological) contributor to this list appears to be motivated entirely by generalised malice towards the human race - he and (almost) he alone is the adjudicator of what is an HET craven image. 

With inadequate self-censorship perhaps the long-suffering moderator should return inflamatory contributions with a standard SHOE flag of "BOOT" (a hint that a rewrite is called for).  Overlong contributions should be returned with a standard SHOE flag of "SHOE!!" (a hint that shortening is required). 

Gresham´s Law punch-ups (which can squeeze out some merit) should be conducted between consenting adults in private.  But having spent much of the last year in Popper-related archives, economists are comparative saints of moderation in this regard.

RL