Wondered what it said about coming across old files and then putting up unpublished articles from thirty years ago, as here, here and here, or a non-academic publication from the same period, as here. Belief that the ideas still have relevance, perhaps already developed by others, given not developed by self. Still can’t find much academic discussion of legal dimensions to burdens of proof in accounting standards, though there is at least one reference to “50 plus 1” in discussing the recognition of contingent liabilities in accounting.

Some idea that some ideas can transcend somewhere.

On the other hand, am certain that the Wikipedia pages started will be more widely read. in any decade.

Some mixed legacy, but what mixed

About brucelarochelle

This entry was posted in Accounting Issues, Legal Issues, Various life philosophies, Wikipedia. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Mixed

  1. On June 29, 2015, Neil Remington Abramson commented as follows (reproduced with permission):

    I guess all academics have files with papers they wrote thinking they were important subjects but that the referees rejected. In one way, referees are a blessing. because they eliminate the unsubstantiated and increase the probability of quality,

    On the other hand, if your leading edge threatens conventional wisdom, convention may repudiate you, and prevent publication. I wonder if Kant could have been published. had the conventional wisdom of his time had its way. Certainly Galileo couldn’t have been, and they did their best to silence Christ.

    But few are Christ, and many are dross.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s