While I agree with Virginia Postrel that we shouldn't discount the value of Roger Launius' list of book recommendations over it, I'm not sure what it is she thinks is "unfair" about my previous criticism of him (or at least of what he said--perhaps calling him "clueless" was a little harsh). His comment really was ill informed .

I can't remember if she said "unfair" or "not-entirely-fair" when I first read it the other day. It says "not-entirely-fair" now.

That said, since she didn't qualify her thoughts on why she didn't think it was fair, I'm not sure it's entirely fair on your part to call her "ill-informed" for her assessment. Seems a litle harsh...

I read both of you every day, so I just want to see everyone get along :)

No, it was probably always "not entirely fair." But if it isn't entirely fair, presumably there's something unfair about it. And my comment about being uninformed was in reference to Launius, not Virginia.

And my comment about being uninformed was in reference to Launius, not Virginia.

Yep... as I look at the nearly 20 space and aviation books and monographs Launius has written or edited, several in collaboration with other clueless types like John Glenn and Dennis Jenkins, I often ask myself: "Is there any hope that the chair of the division of space history at the NASM will ever become as well-informed as the Transterrestrial crowd?"

The answer's probably no, unless he suffers a severe brain injury.

"Is there any hope that the chair of the division of space history at the NASM will ever become as well-informed as the Transterrestrial crowd?"

I'm sure he's a fine historian. But he's clearly a lousy prognosticator, and uninformed on that issue.

To call someone well-informed or ill-informed as a prognosticator is simply gibberish. There is no information about what hasn't happened yet; all any of us has to go on is what has happened so far, which is called (are you sitting down?) history.

I have documentation and interviews of people from Freeman Dyson to Jim Benson to Elon Musk speaking highly of Launius and what they've learned from his work. They seem to know the difference between "Launius isn't as optimistic as I am" (which is fine) and "Launius is ill-informed" (which is embarrassing trash talk). Maybe someday you'll figure it out, too.

Monte, maybe you think that talking about "angry technologies" is a useful way to analyze things and make predictions. I don't.