The Agenda:
- There have been some changes to the series schedule as we went. First, I'll post the final schedule as it happened complete with links to each diary. I would recommend anyone interested take some time to read the diaries and most of the comments when they have the opportunity. I will add a few stats and some of my thoughts on the diary after each entry.
- After that, I'll put up a little awards section including most prolific posters, best and worst comments, and some other random comment awards.
- Next we'll have a couple submissions and quotes from series contributors.
- Then I'll write my piece on the reasons for the creation of the series, conclusions about the series, and reflections on "Why We Care So Much."
- And finally it'll be up to all of you to settle your scores in the comments.
Sunday Aug 2nd – Introduction by your MC: (XNeeOhCon)(reposted by Chicagoa due to technical difficulties)
About the series, a schedule of events, and a topic overview for each coming diary. We discussed the idea of ‘militant’ atheism vs. ‘live and let live’ atheism, in the context of a discussion about the reason for the diary series (That being informative and entertaining, not proselytizing).
Total Number of Comments - 224
Most Recommended Comment (other than the tip jar)- Live and let live atheist here.
My Favorite Comment - If it wasn't for fire
My Thoughts on the Diary - Despite the technologically difficult start, I was happy with how this diary got the ball rolling. Looking back at the comments I noticed that almost every key discussion point from the series was touched on in the comments. There are some great threads that set up other great exchanges in later diaries. The diary itself is light on content, but the comments are worthy of a good read through.
Tuesday August 4th – Topic 1 – Semantics – (Chicagoa)
We need to establish that without common definitions of key terms these conversations can spiral out of control with long tangent threads of people flaming each other the meaning of just one word. That is what we hope to accomplish in this diary. We need to have everyone understand the definitions we are working with, why we define these things in that way, and that it’s okay to disagree with our definitions, but everyone needs to understand them if they are to focus on the nuts and bolts of the debate. (Some may feel that semantics ARE the nuts and bolts, but that would be semantics ;-)
Key words defined in this section:
*Atheist/Theist (fun with prefixes ‘A-’ and ‘Anti-’)
*Agnostic/Gnostic
*Spirituality vs. Religion
*Scientific Method/Science
Total Number of Comments - 363
Most Recommended Comment (other than tip jar) - In your otherwise excellent and
My Favorite Comment - Same as above
My Thoughts on the Diary - This was a fascinating exploration of the words we commonly use while discussing religion and atheism. There were many interesting threads delving into quibbles with Chicagoa's definitions and I think a lot of great things came from them. I expected that these semantics debates would surface again as the series rolled on, and they did, but I think it was helpful to acknowledge up front that there are going to be semantics issues in these discussions because it helped people recognize that often those semantic disparities accounted for most of the disagreement between commenters.
I would encourage everyone to eventually watch the video embed that Chicagoa posted in his response to the comment above. It was very cool for a nerd like me.
Thursday August 6th – Topic 2 – Belief– (Something the dog said)
We need to discuss the fallacy that Atheism is a belief that requires faith. Several of us have tried to tackle this one, and it is most certainly daunting, but we need to focus just on the frames people view the debate from, and how they shape their opinions in this debate. This picks up where our discussion of semantics leaves off.
Total Number of Comments - 307
Most Recommended Comments (other than tip jar) - Belief, And that applies in science as well.
My Favorite Comment - That's tremendously facile.
My Thoughts on the Diary - This Diary added a lot of new discussion points to the series. I think it is extremely important to spend adequate time on the old "atheism is a faith" canard because so many misperceptions of atheists rest on that foundation. I was also very pleased to see extensive discussion about 'evidence' and the implications and possibilities of it.
Sunday August 9th – Topic 3 – Science, and Scientific Method - (Rfall)
There are a lot of people misinformed about this. Scientific method is often spoken of as something people have ‘faith’ in (again, a clever attempt to draw false equivalence between science and religion). We will attempt to clearly establish that science is a method and not a belief. Science is always in search of new information to expand and refine existing knowledge, as opposed to the religious impulse to prove that knowledge is finite so we therefore must rely on faith in some version of the unknowable to fulfill us.
Total Number of Comments - 244
Most Recommended Comment (other than tip jar) - Nice. Thanks for this. n/t
My Favorite Comment - sure
My Thoughts on the Diary - This diary stayed on topic very nicely. As could be expected, Rfall approached it scientifically and packed it with a lot of information. It was a great overview of the subject the opened up a number of good sub-topics within the comments. It's a great read, and well executed diary.
Thursday August 13th – Topic 4 – Evolution – (Rfall)
We probably won’t get a lot of arguments about the validity of evolution from the Daily Kos community. However we need to discuss evolution in the context of scientific method, emphasizing the consensus between different fields of science, and the real meaning of the word ‘theory.’ Also, we’ll add a little about creationism in schools, the Kitzmiller v. Dover school board controversy in ’05, and the creationist museum.
Total Number of Comments - 100
Most Recommended Comment (other than tip jar) - I think many Creatiionists have p-branes.
My Favorite Comment - A single successful test does not make a theory
My Thoughts on the Diary - This is a great extension to Rfall's diary on science. It is a little more specific, with less contentious information, which may go a long way to explain the smaller amount of traffic. Nonetheless, it was a great diary and there were several interesting discussions in comments.
Sunday August 16th – Topic 5 – Common Arguments and Misconceptions about Atheists - (Superbowl XX)
We run into some of these pretty frequently. A big one we need to discuss is "morality comes from religion." Another we must tackle is the "U.S. was founded by Christians/based on Christian principles" myth. We are reassuring Christians that we are not out to ‘get’ them and eat their babies, and discussing why we even need to reassure them. We will address irrational fears that Christianity is somehow being oppressed by ‘militant secularists’ and the gays.
Total Number of Comments - 206
Most Recommended Comment (other than tip jar) - Door to door atheists
My Favorite Comment - Don't be afraid to let her go
My Thoughts on the Diary - SuperbowlXX did a wonderful job of getting right to the heart of the most persistent and exacerbating misconceptions of atheism. I don't think these can ever be fully put to rest, but they were as effectively explained and discussed as is likely possible in this sort of forum. Some great comment threads delve into many of these ideas deeply and entertainingly. Oh, and I essentially get called a Nazi (guess who). That was fun. Seriously though, there are some fun threads in this diary. Check it out sometime, if you haven't already.
Thursday August 20th – Topic 6 – The Other Side of the Fence: Faith and Spirituality, (Rebuttal?) - (Colorado is the Shiznit)
Colorado is the Shiznit will lead the charge on this one, because the rest of us aren’t really qualified. We would like to have some discussion on what benefits many feel they get from faith and/or spirituality, and why they hold these beliefs. We would also like to get some kind of survey of religion/spiritual people’s perspective of Atheism/Atheists.
Total Number of Comments - 409
Most Recommended Comment (other than tip jar) - Topic is too dangerous
My Favorite Comment - There's a HUGE difference between
My Thoughts on the Diary - I'm sad that I didn't get to comment in this one while it was mostly active. I really enjoyed the way the diary was written and am fascinated with Shiz's personal brand of spirituality. I wanted to address some of the points she made which I disagreed with, but now it seems too late. Not surprisingly, at least when measured by number of comments, this one got the most attention. I think we could use more diaries like this in which people that consider themselves religious or spiritual are secure enough to discuss their feelings in the context of an atheist dominated environment. It's always tough to avoid bruised egos and flattened toes when the major forces of theism and atheism meet in the middle, but no one can say we didn't give it the college try.
Sunday August 23rd - Topic 7 - Growing up Atheist - (WarrenS)
WarrenS talks about growing up in a family of atheists (all right, grandparents on one side were churchgoers, but that's it). How did his parents (both scientists) teach morality and ethics? How did growing up atheist affect his relationships with religions and religious organizations? How did it affect his relationships with religious people? Now that he has a child of his own, how will he approach these questions? Expect lots of stories and thought-provoking digressions in this one.
Total Number of Comments - 95
Most Recommended Comments (other than tip jar) - To extend a popular atheist analogy...., The claim that atheists are certain
My Favorite Comment - Wow. Wowwowwowwowwowwow WOW
My Thoughts on the Diary - I was very moved by this diary, though it was not in the sense that I identified with the childhood Warren described. My upbringing was vastly different, and within a different era, but I know that my daughter will be raised by Atheists, and the last segment about Warren's daughter really got to me. My daughter is not far behind his in age, and I will be meeting those challenging questions before I know it. I admired the way he didn't flee from them and throw out smokescreens or fabrications to delay the inevitable need to teach his child how the world works. The writing was also very personal and engaging, and showed the seriousness with which he approached the task of describing his upbringing by atheists.
Saturday August 29th - Conclusion: ‘Why We Care So Much’ - (XNeeOhCon, with input from all)
This one is pretty simple, but needs more attention. We need to make everyone see why we are so ‘obsessed’ with religion and what it really means to be Atheist in the United States. Within this section we will restate why we felt like participating in this series, and what we hoped to accomplish. We’ll try to tie up as many loose ends as possible and we will get some brief concluding statements from any of those who participated that would like to submit them.
Date and Time TBD – Topic 8 – Creation, Cosmology, Deism, and the Space-Time Continuum. - (Chicagoa)
Chicagoa: This will be "a diary on cosmology - physics, logic, and theory - to explain to the haughty deists why we don't accept their First Cause or Kalam Cosmological arguments for the existence of a non-interventionist designer deity." This will possibly include a discussion of the philosophy of infinite/finite time and space, and explore the common misperceptions of Einstein’s and Hawking’s views of "God."
Top 13 Commenters by Number of Comments in the Series
RandomActsOfReason - 152
Rfall - 134
BoringDem - 124
MnplsLiberal - 100
Chicagoa - 77
The Raven - 75
Rieux - 75
Indexer - 57
XNeeOhCon - 53
ecclesioleft - 49
blue aardvark - 46
The Last Whimzy - 43
WarrenS - 42
Total Comments for all Diaries - 1948
Comment Awards:
Most Bizzare Comment - This one pegged my WTF??-meter:
When are we getting to the practical? (0+ / 0-)
As a committed atheist (actually an anti-theist, to follow the semantics of the first diary), I have been following these diaries with interest the last couple weeks. Although I appreciate the philosophy, will there be some discussion of the practical side of being an atheist (sorry, anti-theist)?
And I apologize if this has been covered in the comments. I have read some of the comments, but honestly, it gets tedious going through the kudos, and the back and forths, etc. Anyhoo . . .
As an athiest, are you committed enough to tell your kids that there is no God? It is one thing to damn your own soul to enternal hellfire, but your innocent children? If you believe, like me, that they need to make thier own choice on the topic, is this realistic if you have set them back 18 years and denied them the weekly indoctrination that other children have received? Or do you take them to church anyway and grind your teach while the stupid myths are pronounced as the truth?
Ever have the bible thumpers invite your kids to the youth groups and the Christian rock concerts as an outreach to the "unchurched"?
Ever have a child with a serious illness, and think that maybe, just maybe, some praying, or some faith, or whatever magic they might be able to bestow on her, might at least help her mental state?
These are the issues I struggle with . . .
by 35us271 on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:13:13 PM PDT
Most Trollish Comment - This one's easy for me:
Morality is group consensus?? (2+ / 3-)
Recommended by:coigue, ge0rge
Hidden by:BoringDem, XNeeOhCon, SuperBowlXX
Really? The Nazis would have loved you, you'd fit right in. How does your social interactionism avoid such horrors as the Holocaust? Or cannibalistic tribes? Again, you've failed to ground your value system in something other than sheer contingency.
Dreams which appear at night and offend in the day usually aren't true because they're born between Millions of our illusions.
by MnplsLiberal on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 08:20:22 AM PDT
Funniest Comment - Click the Link for more context:
I think many Creatiionists have p-branes. (7+ / 0-)
Recommended by:walkshills, GreenPA, gsenski, XNeeOhCon, rfall, ericlewis0, De Rat Bastert
by BoringDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 05:20:38 PM PDT
Best Smackdown - The work that went into this comment has to be commended. It was a response to our favorite troll:
It didn't? (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by:The Raven, WarrenS, RandomActsOfReason, XNeeOhCon, Colorado is the Shiznit
Oh, well then. If it didn't happen, then I guess your claim that it did was another lie.
Okay, okay--there's no need for me to sink to your dishonest level. You'll complain about being required to provide links to substantiate your claims, and then demand links to substantiate other people's claims. But I'm not you--I have no problem providing evidence for what I'm asserting. Here's the thread. The comment of yours you're describing is titled "Sam Harris the torture advocate."
Above, you responded to SuperBowlXX's point that Harris has made ugly contentions, notably about torture, with:
But when I brought that up in the context of a counter to the atheist claim that religion is responsible for all evil in the world, I was flamed.
See how you are?
Your continual bigotry, here represented in the "See how you are?" shot, has already been called out and sheepishly retracted. Now we can concentrate on the lies.
There is no assertion in that thread that religion is responsible for all evil in the world. (Indeed, I defy you to find any atheist who has ever claimed "that religion is responsible for all evil in the world.") That is a fundamentally dishonest strawman; it's a brutal misrepresentation of the argument being made in that thread.
Your allegation that "the atheist claim" at issue was "that religion is responsible for all evil in the world" is a lie. You are a liar.
In fact, the context in which you brought up Harris's arguments about torture was my citation of Harris making a totally unrelated point, to wit:
Many pious Christians go to countries like Sudan to help alleviate human suffering, and such behavior is regularly put forward as a defense of Christianity. But in this case, religion gives people bad reasons for acting morally, where good reasons are actually available. We don’t have to believe that a deity wrote one of our books, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, to be moved to help people in need. In those same desperate places, one finds secular volunteers working with organizations like Doctors Without Borders and helping people for secular reasons. Helping people purely out of concern for their happiness and suffering seems rather more noble than helping them because you think the Creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it, or will punish you for not doing it.
But the worst problem with religious morality is that it often causes good people to act immorally, even while they attempt to alleviate the suffering of others. In Africa, for instance, certain Christians preach against condom use in villages where AIDS is epidemic, and where the only information about condoms comes from the ministry. They also preach the necessity of believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ in places where religious conflict between Christians and Muslims has led to the deaths of millions. Secular volunteers don’t spread ignorance and death in this way. A person need not be evil to preach against condom use in a village decimated by AIDS; he or she need only believe a specific faith-based moral dogma. In such cases we can see that religion can cause good people to be much less good than they might otherwise be.
- "Do We Really Need Bad Reasons to be Good?"
You responded to this argument by flatly ignoring it--sneering that Harris is a "torture advocate" and therefore he "does not get to lecture me about morality"; "[h]is advocacy of torture invalidates his claim to be some kind of moral arbiter." Which is entirely irrelevant to the argument actually at issue. You brought up the torture issue to avoid having to deal with that argument.
Thus, your claim that you brought up Harris' arguments about torture as "a counter to the atheist claim that religion is responsible for all evil in the world" is a lie. You brought it up to excuse your inability to answer his actual argument on an entirely separate issue. You are a liar.
You were indeed flamed there, just as you have been many times since. (And are being right here.) Lying bigots frequently get that kind of treatment, for understandable reasons.
But in that thread, here was my real response to your cowardly irrelevancies about Harris and torture:
Argumentum ad hominem in the raw.
Insulting the man does not refute his argument.
And when you tried the same tactic again:
[Your "opinion" of Harris] also happens to be a bald logical fallacy. Harris is making an argument. Your incapacity to respond to that argument rationally is your problem, not mine. Argumentum ad hominem appears to be your excuse for failing to respond when you have been beaten.
Thus, your assertion that the response to your citation of Harris and torture was that you "w[ere] flamed" is a lie. The actual response was a statement that your tactic was a simple resort to the ad hominem fallacy. And it was. You are a liar.
Q.E.D., pal.
by Rieux on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 11:31:54 AM PDT
Here are a couple words from some of the contributors:
Submitted by WarrenS (Italics his):
I've enjoyed the series. I mentioned in the opening paragraphs of my diary that I'd been engaged in a Facebook exchange with an old friend who at some point in the past two decades went All-Christian, All-The-Time. He's socially progressive, so we don't have political disagreements...but our back-and-forth on the issue of school prayer was too utterly depressing for words. Not because K__ was abusive, but because his responses showed over and over again that he was unwilling or unable to address the actual points I was making. After my diary came out, I notified him; and sure enough, within ten minutes he'd sent me a message that addressed the first sentence in my piece: "I've talked to thousands of Christians and has never heard a single one say that they 'hated, feared and despised' atheists." Well, of course not: they love us, and just want us to be saved! Sigh...ARGUMENT FAIL.
Reading the exchanges and comments on the various diaries in the Atheist Digest series reminded me of my own standards for the quality of religious discussion: the people involved in the discussion should be able to demonstrate to the other parties' satisfaction that they understand what their interlocutors are saying, rather than attacking strawmen or building a case based on whatever the other person's first five words were. This is irrelevant if both parties have identical religious affiliations, but it is absolutely crucial when they don't. I wish I could offer my friend K__ an opportunity to participate in a mediated discussion in which the prerequisite for making one's own point is a successful paraphrase of the other person's. There were a number of religiously affiliated commenters whom I thought demonstrated this ability well; needless to say, there were some who didn't or couldn't (and you don't know who you are, because you're oblivious... but the rest of us do!). Colorado's diary (which I greatly enjoyed) allowed this to happen in the other direction; alas, I got to her piece too late to be able to contribute significantly.
Congratulations on an excellent blogging project. Maybe sometime we can do a live-blogged match between an articulate atheist and a believer, with the conditions outlined above: No moving on in the conversation until you've demonstrated that you understand what they're saying and can paraphrase it to the satisfaction of the blogging audience.
Quoted with permission from RandomActsOfReason:
Thanks for keeping me on this list. While I regretfully have been unable to contribute a diary, I have read each one of yours avidly (sometimes a day or two late, but no less avidly).
It has been quite a ride, and I have to admit I didn't think it would work the way it has. Yes, there have been inevitable bumps and bruises along the way, and, overall, few members of the DKos community have read, commented or rec'd them. But those who did were affected, I think, one way or another - and that's all you can ask from a piece of writing, to affect people's thinking, even if it's just to reject your arguments.
It culminated for me in Warren's diary (yes, I know the series is not over, and I am looking forward to the next diaries, but that one touched me personally and deeply). I can definitely say that I have been affected by that diary.
[snip]
As a rational thinker, I'm always looking for challenges to my assumptions, and I've had the experience, more than once growing up, of a paradigm shift in my thinking, when something I was sure was true, turned out not to be true. As the son of scientists and lovers of science, I grew up hearing heated, impassioned arguments, sometimes shouted arguments, between guests, and my parents (and sometime between my parents) on issues in physics, biology, psychology, politics, and, yes, religion - and those guests and my parents were and remained life long friends.
For me, one of the most important books I've read is "Why Societies Need Dissent" by Cass R. Sunstein. It actually supports the notion with real data and logical explanation - why vigorous disagreement, and tolerance for vigorous disagreement - it critical to healthy society.
I wish more people thought that was a good thing. Our entire culture is built around the idea that changing your mind is bad - as a politician, it is considered a mortal sin, rather than a sign of growth. So, people dig in their heels, and, the more challenged they find their beliefs, the more personally offended they are, the more hostile they become, and the more irrational.
Now’s the time on Sprockets when we dance! Or, if not that, at least we can have a quick, frank discussion about why this diary series came to be.
Here I was, going about my life, not bothering anyone, and I had this thought: "All these atheist diaries on Daily Kos get a lot of attention but always get overloaded because they get swamped with too much baggage inherent to the debate." Okay, it didn’t go exactly like that, but you get the picture. Then I thought something like this: "Perhaps it would be cool if I rounded up some of the best diarists and commenters I can find and break these arguments down into smaller parts so we can get deeper into the ideas about atheism that too often get short shrift." Then I gathered email addresses and sent out an email. Magically (perhaps a poor word choice in this context?), people responded. That just about covers the conception of the series, but let’s delve a little deeper into the ‘why’ question.
Why is it that this idea came to me and was not immediately dismissed as ridiculous? What gave me the idea that it might be a fun adventure or have any positive outcomes? Well, I’ll tell you if you just stop grilling me already.
Being an atheist for me is part of my identity, but it isn’t how I define myself. It is more of a byproduct of who I am than a way to explain who I am to others. Perhaps having such introspection affords me the ability to discuss my atheism without becoming too emotionally involved in the argument. In fact, part of my identity is my love for the employment of rhetoric. I may not be the most accomplished arguer, but I still love to argue, and if you disagree with that, I can prove it! So, says me, what better than a prolonged argument about one of my favorite subjects? It is a subject, by the way, that I infrequently get to argue about in my non-internet (aka ‘real’) life. I set out with the intent of hopefully educating as many Kossacks as possible about the realities and some of the various unique ideas present in the atheist community. I wanted to strike a tone that was about midway between militant declarations and begging theists to be nice to us, if such a scale exists. I think some would surmise that we were too far one way or the other, but I was happy that for the most part we stood our ground without putting up too many walls that would prevent theists from engaging with us. Every person who participated did so for their own unique set of reasons, but I am happy with how things turned out, and hope that some people internalized some additions or refinements to their personal philosophies based on their discussions. I know I have a better understanding of the diversity within the atheist community because of this series, and I got a great deal of just plain enjoyment out of the process.
Theists often ask us: "Why are you so obsessed with religion if you don’t believe in it?"
Well, that can be a hard question to answer because not all of us are ‘obsessed’, and not all of us that are ‘obsessed’ are so for the same reason. Because of that I will give you my reasons, and hope they overlap with a good deal of others out there.
For me, and maybe I’m too hung up on this concept, it has to do with frames. By "Frames" I mean those pre-hung squares of thought and meaning that societies and sub-cultures create to define their major philosophical boundaries. Frames are many, and overlapping, but as we focus on just two they become less overwhelming and more instructive to my point. These two I single out are what I will refer to as the ‘theist frame’ and the ‘atheist frame,’ hence forth referred to simply as TF and AF for the sake of brevity.
The TF is dominant in just about every human culture. The dominant culture of The U.S.A is no exception. Within this frame the concept of a deity (one in particular) is both taken for granted and presumed to be a rational, non-controversial idea. Those who occupy this frame are not always theists. Some of them are even atheists, but they all share the presupposition that believing in the supernatural is not at all strange. Within this frame theism is a very easy conclusion to reach, and atheism is looked upon or based upon the concept of some sort of negative. That is to say, that when one assumes the idea of God as valid, those that profess a lack of faith in that principle are seen to have made a conscious choice to reject the dominant god of that TF, and not the underlying principle of theism itself. That is the crucial distinction so I will state it again: Within a Theist Frame, an Atheist is seen as rejecting a particular, pre-assumed diety, and NOT the principle of theism itself. The principle of theism is taken for granted as valid. This is the source of the fallacy that atheism requires a ‘faith.’ When your world view is built partially, if not completely, on the concept that faith in the unknowable is both natural and good, it becomes very hard to set that aside when contemplating atheism. It is still seen through the TF lens, and therefore distorted to fit within the TF.
The Atheist Frame, as you would imagine, is vastly different. Within an AF, one does not employ supernatural thinking, or subscribe to any sort of idea that it’s necessary or normal to believe in a deity. When working within an AF it is perfectly natural to reject the idea of a specific god, and indeed all gods, without having to make the case for their non-existence. This is the frame most of us atheists occupy, and it is a difficult task to bring people who are entrenched in a TF into our AF for a discussion.
With Atheist Digest, I wanted to try to create a bridge between these worlds, where those of the majority TF could possibly see the difference and come to a better understanding of our perspective on the universe. When doing this our language seems to atheists as unnecessarily conciliatory to theists, and angers some who feel we are compromising our integrity to try to speak to those in the TF. To others our explanations from within our AF seem both esoteric and arrogant, and they either bristle or disengage from the conversation. A balance must be struck between these extremes.
When building a bridge between two distant shores it is necessary for one to work from both sides of the divide. We could stay on our little island and chatter amongst ourselves, but that wouldn’t befit a great conversational forum like Daily Kos. We could cross over en masse but we would either look too aggressive and prompt a defensive response; or we would look too insecure in our convictions and compromise our integrity as confident rationalists. So, in this series, we tried to break down our perspective into bite size pieces, which would hopefully allow those who don’t already understand it to chew it and swallow without choking. As an added bonus, those of use who know the AF inside and out were able to play around and have some fun exchanges with others like them.
I can’t say how successful we have been in this series with finding a middle road between tin ear pontification and kowtowing to those of the theist persuasion. Our intent was to not do either, but to educate those who were open to it, and to grow our own perspectives by incorporating new ideas from others. How do you think we did? Did I explain the ‘why’ sufficiently? The comments section beckons.
As a final note, I have received several statements expressing the desire to see this series continued. It seems that the most sustainable course would have to be turning it into a weekly series. Unfortunately I cannot commit any more time to the organization of such a proposal. I am however very willing to pass the torch to anyone that would like to set up a re-occuring incarnation of it. I would even sporadically contribute a diary or some comments to others' diaries. If anyone has that ambition, please drop me a line and I'll do what I can to facilitate the establishment of such an endeavor. It has been a wonderful experience for me. Thanks to all who helped make it so. See you in the comments.