<table><tr><th>From:</th><th>Barnaby Marsh</th></tr><tr><td>Sent:</td><td>Saturday, December 27, 2014 7:06 PM</td></tr><tr><td>To:</td><td>jeffrey E.</td></tr><tr><td>Cc:</td><td>Joi Ito; John Brockman</td></tr><tr><td>Subject:</td><td>Re:</td></tr></table>

Yes, one of many problems of using "genius". Ope= to further exploration, as long as not watered down. We want real maveric=s, but it is often used as another catch-phrase. Need to consider how it r=sonates in person, too- calling someone a "genius" in higher aca=emic circles causes some discomfort and does not sit too well (a good thin= in some sense, since it adds charge); "maverick" is a little mo=e palatable and lacks the discomfort - it is "safer". We want to=be careful with safe-types with corporate appeal, which is the way things =o with TED, etc, because of the problem of "crowding out" of ver= alive minds who have limited patience for just being on display. Lets dis=uss further though...

On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Jeffrey E. <je=vacation@gmail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com» wrote:

joi, barnaby, I was speaking with John who raised t=e question of having" genius "in the titles rather than so=ething less well accepted, instituional. and/or common , =more like maverick minds. something that represents more of a =ebel mentality than a well respectied man with pipe.

=A0 please note

The information contained in this communication iscr>confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute insid= information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is =he property of

JEE

Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of thiscommunication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be un=awful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify =s immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com <mailtoleevac=tion@gmail.com> , and destro= this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. =opyright -all rights reserved