I read the entire article before I posted it.
Rephrasing the observation to be more specific. "From your responses, there is no evidence you read with comprehension the Wiki site you posted".
I am not opposed to their attempts to set up a university. I doubt they will succeed for a number of reasons but this is the USA and they have the freedom to try.
I read it and I understood it. The first sentence of the 'Reception' part said that some initial commentators criticised the 'lack of a plan'. That some commentators said that does not mean there was not a plan. Indeed, there is a plan and timeline, and they're on the website. That Loren read one sentence in the 'Reception' part of the article and instantly and uncritically accepted it (the Wiki article doesn't even say there wasn't a plan, but that commentators criticised the 'lack of a plan') proves only that people read uncritically when they see a supporting narrative.
I'm glad to hear you are not opposed.
They haven't published detailed plans, that's true. But that doesn't mean they don't have detailed plans. Nor does it mean a timeline with details cannot be developed into 'plans' to satisfy an audience of people like yourself who are ideologically opposed to the people and the ideas at the foundation of the university.
As your response ironically provides evidence that people read uncritically when they see a supporting narrative, because there was much more in that section that was on point criticism. But hey, since you sympatico with their ideology and their straw men, why bother to think critically?
Loren responded to my assertion that the University of Austin founders had a plan and the criticism that it didn't have a plan was off-base. I linked the Wikipedia article to show the elements of the plan.
Last time I checked, that's called an assumption. You reckon I could be part of the leadership of this University? A lot of these people call themselves left. Do you think as a leftist I would be accepted because I hold accountability higher then leftism?
I did not say they had detailed plans. I said not making publically available detailed plans does not mean they don't have detailed plans. And, in fact, I would not expect detailed planning documents to be made publically available if they had them. They are simply not meant for public consumption, and might contain commercially sensitive material
If you had the relevant career experience for a senior position, and--more importantly--you shared the foundational values and wanted to work there--why shouldn't you be considered?
Like I said; it's easy to write out a plan without compromising oneself and not make it look like a fortune cookie saying. They failed to do so, so I'm sticking with my opinion of insipid platitudes. For fuck's sake, they couldn't get beyond two fucking sentences. I love how you still call that legitimate, however.
I am asking you - do you think I have a chance? Their foundational view as you put it is anti censorship. I think I could fit in. What do you think? Let's be honest; my criticisms towards their expression of their "plan" can only benefit them in revision with regards to recruitment. What do you think my chances are?
This exchange started with you mocking the project by saying calling it a university was 'Orwellian' and 'authoritarian'. You are wrong on both counts. If you had merely said you were unconvinced that anything would come to fruition, I'd never have engaged you in the first place.
I have no idea if you would 'stand a chance', because I have no idea who you are, where you live, whether you have relevant experience, and what roles the organisations has vacant. I'm completely baffled, in fact, as to your line of questioning.
Good to know. I was unclear if there is any flexibility allowed in pronouns.
I believe you.
Some and probably most firm opinions are formed as a reaction to some of the political, moral and/or philosophical views defended by some of the creators and prominent supporters of this new university defend.
They aren't going to a bank. I cannot imagine a modern bank issuing a loan for a start-up non-profit institution of learning. I cannot imagine a bank giving a loan to any start-up with no assets or income.
Why should they publish detailed plans on the internet?
Where did Loren say that? The impression I got was that you are upset because no one is willing to have the same take as you do on this university because most people are aware of the concepts of scamming and grifting. I'm sure you can clarify your position on how Loren thinks so don't let me stop you.
