Call-and-response

By -
Let's see how they respond:

 Dear Cosmo / Wanda,

I'm a little confused about your name and role, since line one of your note (below) seems to state that this note is from Cosmo, who is the editor of REM, but the signature says this note is from Wanda, who is the editor of REM. Was your day a little topsy-turvy, perhaps?

But hey, let's set aside that minor confusion: which parts of my paper did you like best? Was it the endorsement of the collective ownership of the means of production that really struck you? Or was it the strong position I took against female circumcision?

Regards,
Gene Callahan

On Mar 29, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Wanda Petty wrote:

Dear Gene Callahan,
 
I’m Cosmo Johnson, the editor of Research in Economics and Management (REM) ISSN 2470-4407(Print) ISSN 2470-4393(Online). I have had an opportunity to read your paper “Morgan, Mary S. 2012., The World in the Model: How Economists Work and Think. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 2012. xvii + 421 Pages. $44.99” which is published in Austrian Economics, The Review of, and can tell from your work that you are an expert in this field.
 
 
We are calling for submission of papers. Please find the journal’s profile at: http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/rem and submit your manuscripts online, you can also submit your manuscripts to rem@scholink.org. If you have any questions, please contact with the editor at: rem@scholink.org.
 
It is appreciated if you could share this information with your colleagues and associates. Thank you.
 
Best Regards,
 
Wanda Petty 
Editor
Research in Economics and Management 

Comments

  1. rob9:57 AM

    He/she only said "I have had an opportunity to read your paper ". He never said he had actually read it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ken B11:04 PM

    Wow, I am not sure why but this surprises me. I'd have bet big bucks you were actually against public ownership of the means of female circumcision.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ken B10:10 AM

    Have you considered submitting a random word salad generated by AWK to see what happens?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more