From: sesquipedality	Date: June 26th, 2007 06:59 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate on what makes a "way in" to a conversation?

From: kaet	Date: June 26th, 2007 07:17 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I suppose there are different kinds of barriers to entry, but I guess I mean it in a kind of didactic sense: there seems to deal with "uncouth" neophytes by teaching, rather than by deriding or ignoring. I suppose that restricts things to canon a bit more, I don't think it's an unalloyed good thing, but I'm pleased the way some of Cambridge's autodidacts put me straight in years gone by.

	From: sesquipedality	Date: June 26th, 2007 08:29 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Ah, so sort of less cliquey then. Or at any rate a more welcoming clique?

From: kaet	Date: June 27th, 2007 04:53 am (UTC)		(Link)

Yeah. More welcoming, as long as you eventually agree, ;-).

	From: keirf	Date: June 27th, 2007 05:05 am (UTC)		(Link)

Ah, but the problem with the Cambridge clique is that if you don't agree with their underlying philosophy and methodology (generally a form of logical positivism), you get treated rather rudely in discussions.

From: kaet	Date: June 27th, 2007 05:45 am (UTC)		(Link)

Absolutely.