Pat Gunning wrote: "Menger, Mises, Hayek, Kirzner, and Lachmann would have regarded themselves as economists." Let me testify that they are economists. I came to think that they had depth and breadth of knowledge and they had profound understanding. Their misfortune is largely of their own making. They choose to make themselves inaccessible to the ordinary readers by their never-ending philibustering and ear-splitting jargon, and served to alienate themselves by a readiness to attack instead of to attract potential recruits. Having lost all faith in mainstream banality, I went to NYU at the age of 33 with the hope of getting some answers from the Austrian School, only to find a cult atmosphere of some andh-bhakt (Hindi for blind followers)who would not tolerate any questions. Ten years later, I left. My dissertation reached an Austrian conclusion (that new knowledge is the necessary and sufficient condition for economic development) from within a strictly noeclassical format (Samuelson's 2x2x2 trade model), also exposing the utter banality of Lewis, Becker, Todaro, Solow and Lucas. I made plenty of enemies on both aisles by marrying the odd couple. The tragedy is that these authors have valid substance but no form, so that nobody can readily see what it is: it is amorphous. The neoclassical school has good form but no substance. In my own little way, I tried to pour the substance of Menger-Mises-Kirzner in a bottle of Leontief, producing a concoction that pleases nobody. Shall we drink to that, no? Mohammad Gani