>>As is always the case with these debates, I can't resist the urge to >>ask - so what? Why is the value controversy so important? Why is it >>so important for Justin to reject it and Rakesh to defend it? > >This started with a brief remark. Then someone asked me to explain >why I reject the LTV. Then the roof fell in. Rakesh wouldn't even >let me back out of a discussion that (to be frank) doesn't interest >me much. I did spend some time on value theoey, came to the >conclusions I've had to adumbrate here, and never even wrote much on >it because it was evident to be that the only pepople who werereally >interestedw ere the true believers, and I wasn't going to persuade >_them_. So, I agree, it's not that important. >
A contemptuous comment. You're not persuading us not because we are true believers but because your reasons (redundancy, transformation problem) are not as strong as you think they are. Rakesh
