In chapter 6, I liken the old argument between Mark Pitt and Jonathan Morduch over the meaning of Pitt and Khandker's paper on the impact of microcredit to "a debate between two nuclear physicists over obscure properties of uranium isotopes." Then, I'm just realizing now, I mix my metaphors: "And not even the litigants could fully explain what was going on because each used his own methods and did not, or could not, reconcile his results with the other’s." I'll fix the mixed metaphor. At any rate, this bewilderment about something important is why I waded into the debate and became one of those physicist-lawyers. Now I realize how a lot of you must have felt reading the continuation of that old debate.It must have felt like reading this note from David Bergman:
And it goes on ...... In the appellate division, Tuesday was mostly taken up with the Attorney General and Bangladesh Bank's lawyers arguing that the court should not recall its earlier order which dismissed Yunus's application to get leave for appeal (against the High Court order) and also to argue why an appeal was (in any case) not necessaryhttp://newagebd.com/newspaper1/frontpage/17467.html
The court is set to issue its opinion tomorrow, which is tonight where I am.
