Report from the New School

[jporter]

>davemarc wrote:
>> It's just that, yes, I wanted more talk about M&D and everyone seemed
>> extremely reluctant to really take the plunge.  There was a lot of
>> vagaries like "this is a great book," "he's a great author," "he
>> incorporates science and conveys a sense of wonder," "it's funny, it's
>> serious, it's a candy, it's a gum," and "read this book" (who promoted
>> this thing again?), but little of the substantive discussion we've gotten
>> on this list for--what--a month or so, now?
>
>Sounds like maybe they don't want to to say anything that doesn't have
>that ole' akademic imprimatur--it's safe to talk about the older works
>because the scholars have hashed it all out--hey, the p-list is breaking
>ground here (or is it wind?).  That's what I'm enjoying about the
>MDMD--for the most part posters aren't rehashing something they read in
>the literature.
>
>        Steve Maas


Ditto. Reputations at Stake (RAT). Too risky to go out on a limb until
everything's been academically agreed on, including what to disagree on.

Wouldn't want to look like a speculative fool in publik, especially when
any number of those in the audience might be harboring the newest version
of the windbag decoder ring, with latest update- pompous person indicator-
enabled.

The New School sounds like the same old stuff, ho-hum,

jody