J. R. Molloy wrote:
> I take it back. Don't read _Consilience_. You have more important things
to
> do than to try to understand a new idea.
<insert lengthy book review>
> =======================
>
> But they're probably just a bunch of kooks.
If you look back over what I've written on this thread, you may notice the fact that my comments address claims *you* have endorsed. Since you have yet to offer a substantive response to anything I've said, I must assume that either you can't support them or you aren't interested in discussing them. Either way, it appears that there is no point in pursuing the topic.
So far as the book is concerned, your comments make it sound like yet another "we have to sacrifice everything to save the planet or we'll all die" tract, with a health dose of luddite technophobia thrown in for good measure. Of course I wouldn't waste time reading something like that - I've got a 3-foot stack of productive reading I'm working through right now, and that's as small as my to-read list is likely to get in the next decade.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com