kirby urner wrote: > Just keeping stuff the same is comfortable and comforting. All you > need for a conspiracy is a shared tacit investment in "not rocking the > boat". Nothing deeply sinister. But the consequences may be > nevertheless ugly. > Somehow can't let this go.
I keep thinking that your analysis here is confounded with your Fullerism, which is why I come at it a bit and try to encourage you to separate it from your interest in programming/math synergies. Not asking or expecting you to compromise your Fuller crusade. Just separate the crusades a bit. The fact is, despite how I might sound, my general associations with Fuller are positive - as a freewheeling intelligence, as an "adventurous explorer". Caution to the wind. But if we take someone like Kay - who I think I can see more clearly - as a similar spirit, I think we tend to get some who, out of lack of caution , will be the most right in some cases, the most wrong in others. Like you and like I, on edu-sig. Separate the fact that Fuller has not gotten the recognition you feel he has earned within the academic community, and I think your analysis would be different. I'm all for conspiracy theories. There is little else to fall back on when one feels that things have gone terribly wrong. We seem to share some feelings that things have. I guess I fall back on the simplest possibility - follow the money. The possibility that the Python prompt might be the kind of tool most effective in an educational setting is a tremendous threat. It's not only the fact that it is free, it is the fact that is not even software in the sense that the software industry wants us to believe is necessary for this kind of assignment. The are many billions of dollars at stake. Much else follows from there. It is for others to decide whether my incautious statements along these lines might have some ring of truth. Art _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
