That's fine Frederick, I believe you and I'm not defending the discussion or the commentator. But what you quote as the full comment is very different from "One person, in a public forum, openly wished that he had never been born." For readers who aren't familiar with Benatar's views, your version sounds much worse than it actually was. (Also, it's clearly a joke and I gave at the office.)

Frederick, I haven't seen the comments you're talking about but I'm pretty sure the person was making a joke, referring to Benatar's view that it's better for human beings not to have been born. In that context, the comment doesn't seem that vitriolic (since not being born is exactly what Benatar wants).

Cameron Buckner (Indiana) hired by University of Houston. AOS: Philosophy of psychology and cognitive science, philosophy of mind. Previously a postdoc at University of Houston and Alexander von Humboldt Postdoctoral Fellow at Ruhr-University, Bochum

ABD writes: "If Midgley has no problem with men being "fiercely combative," then why does she purport to have rejected a "brash, unreal style of philosophising" that involves "clever young men" competing in "winning arguments." (A) Being brash and competing to win an argument doesn't mean you're fiercely combative in any pejorative sense. (B) The "unreal" part is crucial here. My guess is that Midgley has no problem with people brashly trying to win arguments about real problems. (Or what she believes are real problems.) Her personality and writings are fairly combative, as people have pointed out. It's harder to straight-up "win" when you're arguing about the real world though. "But even if her objection is as Gardner suggests, why does Midgley get to determine which puzzles are worth arguing about and which are not?" She doesn't get to 'determine' this. But she gets to express an educated opinion about it in a letter to the editor, right? BL COMMENT: And this is the FINAL round on this particular sub-debate. Back to the main topic!

I want to second Molly Gardner's point, I think people are misunderstanding Midgley's position. She has no issue with men being "fiercely combative" in philosophy. This isn't about civility or guys not being able to shut the fuck up. This issue is that there's a real world out there to discover, but philosophers (especially men) would rather direct their energies to outcompeting their peers in the phil. equivalent of sudoku puzzles. I think there's a good deal of truth to that. But maybe if 'va' makes a couple more Joan Rivers references I'll change my mind...

I chaired a committee that ran a successful search last year using skype interviews. It was the first time we'd done it, but I doubt our department will ever go back to the APA interview format. You can pretty easily position the camera to see anyone. And I brought in a good microphone that I use for my podcast. I think a good mic is important so that the interviewee can hear the questions clearly. I wouldn't use the built in mic on whatever computer you're using--some of those are awful. Pros: We were able to schedule interviews for 13 candidates without feeling completely burned out by the time we got to the last interview of the day. Obviously it's much much cheaper for candidates and the department. And we can spend the holidays with our families--imagine that. (None of our interviews were during the APA.) Cons: This is getting better but skype connections can be a little dicey sometimes so make sure you have a very good internet connection. Always use ethernet cables when possible. For what it's worth, I don't think it would be appropriate (or necessary) to ask all the interviewees to use a common background. Job candidates have enough to worry about already.