The definition of heterodox economics presented by Pat Gunning was more or less put together by me. What Professor Gunning fails to recognize is that the definition of heterodox economics has two components: one which refers to the economists that make up the community of heterodox economics and the second which refers to the development of a heterodox economic theory that is necessarily not entirely coincidental with any one of the theoretical approaches associated with a sub-group that makes up the community. In any case, the importance of choice theory among the heterodox approaches varies widely; and it is certainly clear that for many of the approaches choice theory is not very important. Moreover, the theoretical content of choice theory for many approaches is decidedly non-mainstream--and Professor Gunning seems to ignore that point. By insisting that economics is and has always been defined in terms of choice theory suggests an ahistorical understanding economics as well as cleansing alternative approaches to economic theorizing from economics. In particular, Professor Gunning (and others) find it necessary to insist that I and other heterodox economists must adhere to his conception of choice theory and that choice theory must the fundamental basis of our theorizing. Instead of insisting that all economists must be homogeneous in their approach to theorizing about the economy, why not be more tolerant and recognize that economics is a contested, changing discipline? If this road is taken then it becomes possible to examine economics historically--that is to have a history of economics. This would have the additional benefit of making the history of economics/economic thought very important (even essential) for the study and learning of contemporary economic theory, whether it be mainstream or heterodox. This is perhaps a more important topic to discuss on the HES listserve than whether economics past and present has simply been ground in mainstream choice theory. Frederic S. Lee