response 17 of 89:

Oct 10 23:46 UTC 1991

'Tis a pity.

response 19 of 89:

Oct 11 04:10 UTC 1991

   I was lucky, my first year in college, to take a course in
ancient Greek history that breezed over the points of agreement, 
and spent most of its time considering the current academic
controversies about the period.  I've been interested ever
since, 'though my sense of Greek history after the Peloponnesian
War is a bit confused.  Not enough controversies, I guess.

response 21 of 89:

Sep 11 02:24 UTC 1992

On the high-tech vs. liberal-arts question, my experience runs just counter
to what some of you expressed - in a way.  A few years back it seemed that
half the people I knew were music (many), philosophy, or English majors/grad
students who'd become computer jockeys of one sort or another.  The common
reason was the job market.  (Many had gotten entry-level computer jobs to
support their schooling & found it impractical to switch after schooling was
over.)

response 23 of 89:

Sep 15 10:30 UTC 1992

The skills developed by the more technical academic disciplines (e.g.,
history) are quite useful in many other fields.  Programming is indeed well-
suited; the ability to systematically view a problem and to weigh conflicting
considerations clearly applies.  (In my opinion, also, a historian who's not
rigorous isn't much of a historian, and this also is a key in programming.)
There are many other fields of which this could be said.  But as far as
the kind of qualifications that employers like to see on your resume ...
you can go to grad school (to prepare to teach, or to postpone the issue);
or you can look for something in politics or a think tank or something like
that, as someone's research assistant.  (RA to a writer of historical fiction?
I doubt it; I suspect they started as frustrated historians themselves.  But
add "write historical novels".)  I can't think of much else off hand.

Unless academic history (or philosophy or whatever) - which translates as
teaching with your own research added as well - is a real possibility, you
may as well admit that you're self-indulgently taking this stuff because
you LIKE it, maybe because you hope it will make you a more well-rounded
person.  That's fine, although it's an expensive hobby with tuition where it
is.  No doubt this is socially useful, and in a truly enlightened culture we'd
all be philosopher-kings at $1.2M per year ... although Plato's view of the
philosopher-king didn't involve any personal luxury, rather the opposite if
anything.

response 25 of 89:

Sep 17 14:07 UTC 1992

Did I say there were huge openings in any of them?  If you can afford to take
it because you enjoy it, IMHO it's likely to improve the world in a small
way, but it's an expensive way to have fun.

response 27 of 89:

Jun 22 05:16 UTC 1993

There's a statue.

response 29 of 89:

Jan 2 00:55 UTC 1994

Very Interesting.

response 31 of 89:

Aug 3 05:47 UTC 1994

 Accurate in terms of what, the book?  

        There are apparently ( idon't know for sure, as I'm not into dumb
but 'cute' storylines like FG) a lot of differences between the book & the mov
movie -- even his IQ!  In the book it is 70, & the movie it is apparently 75.

        This is per a brief piece in last week's USN&WR.

response 33 of 89:

Aug 4 05:59 UTC 1994

Well, Forrest *wasn't* present for all those newscast sequences of
former presidents.....(just in case anyone was fooled?).

response 35 of 89:

Aug 6 05:40 UTC 1994

That probably explains it.

response 37 of 89:

Aug 10 08:30 UTC 1994

(I think I know what spartan was trying to get at! I do! I do!)

(I think he was asking if the events that were depicted in Forrest Gump
could have played out the way the movie suggests!)

(beam)

response 39 of 89:

Aug 12 16:20 UTC 1994

Yeah, I think carson's got it.