Be Suspicious.

For you cannot go about the public pursuit of passion without being seen as hopelessly romantic and naiively sentimental by those who want to affect a more sophisticated air of "professionalism."

And speaking of sophistication, see its roots in sophistry, for example, to understand that it doesn't mean what sophisticated people think it means. An unintentional and uncharacteristic honesty on their part?

As Jeneane says (sort of) Wear your pathetic romantic unsophisticated labels with pride.

As the Good Book says: you cannot serve God *and* Mammon.

You have both right and obligation to be suspicious of those who claim that you can.



For Denise and Kevin: Scientific American (I think) recently published an executionary diatribe against Bjorn Lomborg, the ex-GreenPeace turned skeptic environmental scientist.

Bjorn used the article to publish (on his own website) a rebuttal, for which SA threatened to sue him for copyright infringement, and he removed the offending piece simply because he can't afford the defense costs.*

Question: Would his use be acceptable under the terms you described, below?

Seems to me that it would, but . . . . .

* Several other publications have since made his response available on their own sites, affectively daring SA to sue them, and thus to confirm their deliberate abandonment of any search for truth, in favour of more mercenary ambition.