dag.stenberg at helsinki.nospam.fi wrote:
> ken collins <kenpc at banet.net> wrote:
> > way back, but with the theory already well-developed, i tried to
> > win an opportunity, but couldn't come up with any sponsors. i've
> > never been accepted by SFN. i did attend one of their annual
> > meetings, if that's what you're referring to. seems an extremely
> > cloistered group, no? plus, the "conferences" i have attended
> > were sorrow-times for me... so much work needing to be done, and
> > everyone running around as if they were at some circus, obviously
> > caring more about "being there and being seen" than the work that
> > needed to be accomplished.
>> I would not refer to a SFN Annual Meeting as a cloistered group. One
> cannot really think of 25000 different people as a "group". In a certain
> topic, there might be a "group", the likelihood being greater the less
> studied the subject is.
> Everybody certainly seem to be running around. However, many are very
> organized in their running, going by a schedule they have derived from
> the program with the aid of computers. It would be difficult, though, to
> understand the running, not knowing what they are doing (like: 9.45 goto
> room 135, attend two 10 minute presentations, 10.15 goto poster U46,
> then visit U53, then V12, then AA27, talk to the people there, then goto
> room 213, listen to presentation at 11.30, back to poster T14 to meet X
> and Y for lunch to discuss mutual project.
> Some of the action actually is to "goto the poster area Z1 to Z10" to
> meet one's cloistered group, the important members of which are to be
> found hovering therem, except for the time between 2.30 and 3.15 p.m.
> when Everybody that counts is in room 104.
> Confused? I am not. Been doing it every year for over 10 years, and am
> learning interesting things at each meeting.
no, i'm not "confused". at the one SFN (and multiple AAAS) meeting(s)
iattended, i, too, had carefully filled in my "dance card" weeks before i'd
traveled. i took notes, recorded whole sessions, and was grateful for
the information shared by obviously knowledgeable and dedicated
what i referred to, in what you quoted above, was that there
is never any spontaneous thought happening at the conferences.
everything's scripted, with no room for anything other than what's
scripted. at one conference, for instance, aware of my "outsider"
status, and that i couldn't expect folks to want to know of NDT
without ever having even heard of NDT, i set up invitational
the ones on the bulletin boards were all removed when i next checked
on them. the larger ones, set up during nothing-going-on-at-the-conferences
hours, with me standing by, were declared "reaching-out non gratus",
by clerks of the conferences. i was told, "We can't permit this> You
have to remove this." (i've preserved the displays). nothing more...
no queries on the science... just get your thing that's not in the script
outta here... sniff, sniff.
it was appalling that a new idea in science couldn't stand on it's own
merits at the conferences where science is to be shared... that it
wouldn't even be heard... that my even reaching out with it was an
"embarassment" to the conference choreographers.
so, i stand on what i posted... if the group isn't cloistered, why can't
a fellow whose done work, but who can't gain membership because
he can't find two members who'll sponser his membership, find
two people who'll simply sponsor his presentation, if not his
membership? that's "cloistered" no matter what prying instruments
are applied to the definition.
> Sorry, Ken, that I have not yet dived into AoK, which you kindly sent
> me. I have had a couple of very busy weeks, but I have not lost the file.
i'll be grateful for the "time" you'll give to it, whenever. ken collins
remove the "WhoopDeeDo" to respond