[FOM] Golden Age?
friedman at math.ohio-state.edu
Fri Sep 19 12:03:52 EDT 2003
Reply to Simpson.
On 9/17/03 3:24 PM, "Stephen G Simpson" <simpson at math.psu.edu> wrote:
> > For a critique of Tymoczko's book, see my posting from back in the
> Golden Age of FOM:
> FOM: Tymoczko's book; "quasi-empiricism"; the gold standard
> Stephen G Simpson simpson at math.psu.edu
> Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:17:36 -0500 (EST)
> currently on-line at
In my view, discussion of the "Golden Age of FOM" is not normally
appropriate for FOM postings. I am discussing it only in response to the
impression created by Simpson in his Golden Age comment.
The "Golden Age of FOM" is now. There are an unprecedented number of people
listed on the FOM subscriber page - 705 today - and the intellectual content
and range of content of the postings this calendar year is probably higher
than its ever been.
Some particularly distinguished new subscribers have been recently
recruited. It is almost certain that an unprecedented number of scholars who
are not subscribers look at the FOM Archives with some frequency - perhaps
Of course, everyone is looking forward to further major improvements in the
FOM in the future. This will result when more of the distinguished
subscribers who we don't hear from, find the time to make postings, and some
of us "regulars" find the time to expand and intensify our activity.
The old Simpson posting referred to above is well worth reading now. Reading
it, it does suggest that the "Golden Age of *Simpson postings to* FOM" was
some years ago. I hope that this does not continue to be the case.
I invite people to discuss this matter - the evolution of the FOM - with me
More information about the FOM