SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Sumitra Shah)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:49 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
I have enjoyed this thread very much, learnt some new things and started thinking
differently about a few of them. But I am not writing about the Cambridge Capital
Controversy. This post is about the bleeding heart controversy. Since I was the last
(only?) provocateur of the charge, I felt I should be the person to lay it to rest.
   
I did not take it personally. But some of the comments led me to look up the exact
meaning. MSN Encarta gave the following definition:
   
"foolishly soft-hearted person: somebody regarded as naively kind or sympathetic,
especially toward left-wing or liberal causes"
   
I will accept the designation if you remove 'foolishly'. I have no problem with naive.
BTW, I prefer straight talk to sarcasm. That should be reserved for enemies, not
colleagues.
   
Cheers,  
   
Sumitra Shah  
  
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2