chrome://mega/content/secure.html#!alolGA4I!Xi93O0SURMpOd3d9LrinpDsPEPq7sfoTM7FIaLVc4tw
He hassled his prof. into giving him an A.
Haven't read much of it but it seems to provide a lot into the basis of his convictions. He invokes tabula rasa for example. Also seems pretty messy (or maybe just lame) and I get the sense (although others would be a lot better at determining this than I) that he contradicts himself a lot. In general I'm not impressed as nothing I've read thus far has struck me as particularly insightful. Maybe because it's another case of someone needlessly concocting new labels for things in an attempt to seem somehow special.
