Many thanks to Humberto for taping and sending the video of the panel discussion on Robert Heilbroner. Having known Bob as a teacher who had the kindness to treat me also as a friend, I had a vested interest in hearing it. Bert also wrote that comments and reactions were welcome. The quality was fine, under the circumstances; although I had trouble hearing some remarks due to lack of clarity in audio. So I apologize if my reaction is based on faulty understanding of the proceedings. I liked the balance in the participants' presentations. I want to add a few of my own observations. Robert Dimand's take on the impact of The Worldly Philosophers in inspiring students to become interested in history of economic thought also apply to Bob's long tenure as a teacher. His courses at the New School were the reason why his students were never going to neglect the importance of the past in their research in contemporary issues. It was a concrete contribution to the field, sometimes obvious in the choice of dissertation topics, but quite often in the approach his students incorporated in their very thinking on the economy. It gave us an appreciation of the historical context and institutional underpinnings of the economy. One of the seminars I took from him which he co-taught with Ross Thompson was titled "Autonomy of the economy" and I remember it as one of the most stimulating classes in which students from other disciplines also participated. We took turns shooting down the concept of an autonomous economy. A philosophy student from abroad wrote a fine paper actually describing economics as nothing more than a discourse. Having invested in our work, we were not going to go along, but it did make us think. I haven't heard this mentioned very often, but Bob had great respect for psychology as a branch of knowledge and often made arguments in favor of economists reaching over to enrich their discipline. A theme he would constantly reiterate was his concerns as to how to reconcile the high theory of neo-classical economics with what he called the work-a-day economics like that practiced at places like the Brookings Institute. And though he did not subscribe to the natural laws of demand and supply, he definitely thought them to impart regularity to the capitalist, market economies. To him that was an important structural aspect of economist's subject matter. In response to a question about what he was as a teacher Mat mentioned Bob's accessibility, his mild-mannered, almost humble persona and the image of a "nice guy" that stayed with you. I would like to elaborate, if I may. Bob was definitely very soft-spoken, but hardly tolerant of any illogic. I found him to be very personal, as opposed to impersonal, and immensely encouraging of our intellectual endeavors. I suspect one of the reasons for my rapport with him was that I was much older than the typical graduate student when I joined the school. [Not that there is ever anything "typical" about the New School students.] As Mat said, Bob's accessibility went far beyond the office hours. Here too he was very generous, showed genuine curiosity about our work/progress and went out of his way to be helpful in any way he could. Bob had not given much thought to feminist economics which was understandable given his expertise, so I was forever grateful for his reading my book chapter about gender, commenting on it and encouraging me to go further with it. That kind of openness to diversity in scholarship can only come from a very unique intellect like Bob's. Mat also mentioned the fact that Bob freely gave out his home phone number. What needs to be added is that he always answered the phone himself. I cannot remember a single time when I had a chat with him and did not feel wonderfully positive after putting the phone down. As a mentor, he was simply incomparable. As he got older and his memory started fading, he would sometimes ask me the names of some students before entering the room. Many years later when I met him, I could see his struggling to remember my name. That was the most heart-breaking meeting for me. Sumitra Shah