> must I have read *every word* ever written by someone > before I can express an opinion on his work? Or is > that enough? must I be able to > instantly recollect edition and page number - and > library box and reference number? > To ask him to desist from discussing Mises, simply > because he modestly > acknowledges his imperfect knowledge of Mises, is to > ask all of us to > desist from discussing everything. > > Prabhu Guptara This is a strawman argument. Without a photographic memory no scholar can meet this standard of 'instant recollection' of 'every page number' in 'every edition'. Virtually every scholar of Mises, Smith, Keynes, Marx, or anyone else has imperfect knowledge. What is at issue here is the tendency of some to bash scholars about whom they know very little. I have heard some scholars bash Mises and Hayek in ways that make absolutely no sense. For example, at the HES last summer someone mirespresented Hayek by claiming that the Road to Serfdom argued that any small step towards intervention would lead to a Hitlerean society. I confronted this person afterwards, and he admitted that he really did not know much about the RTS. I am sure that others have bashed Marx, Keynes, and Veblen without really undertanding them. Personally, I avoid criticizing Marx precisely because I know relatively little about his system. One need not acquire superhuman knowledge of Mises to comment on his system. Problems do arise when someone attacks the work of Mises (or any other famous scholar) with only a superficial or biased knowledge of his work. DW MacKenzie