> Chris says Sraffianism is unpopular. So what? That's irrelevant
> to the validity of their critique. Should this mere unpopularity
> persuade me that the critique is unimportant? Apparently not,
> assuming, of course, I'm not swayed by fallacies.


It's pointed out to Rob that the primary source wherein he learned
most of his ideas about what economics is all about dramatically
overemphasizes the importance of Sraffian economics.  Rob responds
by emphasizing how important he thinks Sraffian economics is.

> Chris has never shown why empirical work is relevant to the
> Sraffian critique - e.g. by correctly outlining competing theories,
> specifying how empirical results could decide between such theories,
> and pointing out some empirical tourney.


The point was that the Palgrave excludes discussion of empirical work 
*in general* (notice how Rob cannot even consider how the comment 
applies to economics broadly, he instantly assumes the topic is 
Sraffian economics).  Sraffian models having no empirical relevance
is beside the point.

> But we've seen that
> he considers this forum to be appropriately used for insulting
> researchers, so why be surprised.


Rob is probably referring to Scott Moss, who put on essay on the internet 
accusing every single economist of being "intellectually dishonest," amongst 
other things.  The only thing in my reply that could be considered insulting 
is a demonstration that Moss engaged in intellectual dishonesty himself.  
Rob, being Rob, manages to convince himself that my reply was somehow 
inappropriate.  

By the way, Rob, I'm a researcher.  Will you be ceasing your endless insults
levelled at me, given your new-found sensitivity regarding insulting 
researchers?