I happen to be on OPE-L, and I'm shocked that Barkley has been kept off. But not surprised; this has happened with a *lot* of people. I don't think post-Keynesianism has anything to do with it; Steve Keen, a PK, was a founding member of OPE. It probably does has something to do with the fact that you're a white American male, and that he was trying to hold numbers down at one point, but it may also have something to do with the D-word (I couldn't figure out what Doug's D-word was, but I mean the D-word as in "nonlinear d----- systems").
In any case, right now the list is dead -- 26 posts in July (and little of that was substantive), none so far in August. Unlike the recent death of Marx, I suspect this one isn't greatly exaggerated.
As for the OPE-L archives, Barkley is absolutely right to protest that he and everyone else are not privy to them. Alan Freeman and I, especially, have been fighting for a *long* while to open them up, but to no avail. One vote against constitutes a veto.
This is a real shame because, unlike the value theory debate of the 1970s and early 1980s, about which a lot was written that was readily available, we now have a debate that has been fought behind closed doors, with little in the public domain. And it's a very significant debate, because it threatens to consign a century of Marx-critik to the dustbin of history. As Barkley has surmised, what's at issue is internal (in)consistency. The way I'd put it is that the key matter is whether Marx's value theory can be interpreted in a way that makes it internally consistent.
Mind if I forward your post as the first OPE-L post of August, Barkley? (I'll delete your first paragraph, so it won't seem inflammatory.) People on OPE-L should be aware that they're under the spotlight on the archives thing -- and from *serious* people. (BTW, you could probably get to see the archives by special request, but I think there might be some objections to your citing or quoting anything.)
Ciao
Andrew