I am not an "austrian economist". I am just an economist, a honest and humble economist who teach History of Economic Thought and Public Policies in a small private Spanish university. The Austrian School of economics in Spain (my country) has a small but strong representation, the economist professor Jesus Huerta de Soto and his followers, young and numerous people with whom I collaborate and who never discriminates me as a non-austrian economist. And in my country too, it's necessary to avoid generalization when speaking about hostility. Most of Spanish economist who attack Austrian economists are based on ideological issues. Classic liberal economists (like me) and openly libertarians (as some of Austrian economists defines themselves) are not welcomed today. Not in Spain. It is true that Austrian economists after II WW faced a difficult situation and that some of them developed a feeling of hostility and maybe sectarianism towards non-Austrian economists. But I agree with Peter Boettke. And I wonder if it's time to stop arguing and excluding each other, and simply recognise the best from every school. I know that -as Samuel Bostaph wrote- there are insurmountable methodological differences, and that every school involves a different antropological basis... but I think that every school also has its own "field of validity", and there is no need to ban anyone. The Austrian school of economics deserves the merit of a solid methodology even if it put in question mainstream economics methodology. And when I say Austrian school of economics, I mean "the important ones" from Menger to Mises and all of their followers (as Peter Boettke points out). The defence of individualism in economics, and of economic freedom is another contribution that has to be added to those explained by Peter Boettke. They are not alone in this task, of course, but they are an important reference. Maria Blanco