I clicked through to the article before reading PJ's undernote, and indeed before realizing it was a Gene Quinn column. I'm disappointed that he not only stoops to ad hominem argument, but returns to it and repeats with flourishes.

Now that I've read PJ's note, I understand why she added it to the Newspicks, but I was puzzled at first. Gene Quinn's positions on patenting software, etc. have always struck me as an illustration of Upton Sinclair's famous dictum, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

---
Recursion is the opprobrium of the mathists.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

But not because of his pro-patent views - which I find quite distasteful.

When a Lawyer - someone expected to have gone through extensive Legal education - states that the Federal Circuit is going to overrule the Supremes.....

Well.... when the common person has a better understanding of the hierarchy of the Court System (via the basic education of public school) then the professed Lawyer, that's the kind of Lawyer you do not want representing you in an actual Court case.

My humble, non-legal, opinion as one of those common people who might have to rely on a Lawyer to represent me.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• I wouldn't hire him - Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 03:31 PM EDT