Let me start with a preliminary comment.
As hinted in several places in the essay,
I do not claim that our field is totally dominated by competitions.
On the contrary, I believe that the most important decisions
(i.e., the hiring and promotion decisions) 
are taken mostly based on the evaluation of accomplishments
(as judged by experts). Hence, the best strategy for an aspiring
young researcher is to aim at accomplishments of great importance
(rather than at many accomplishments of small importance). 
What I am arguing about our field is that it seems evolve in a 
specific direction, and we better stop and reverse that evolution. 

1. On my intension when posting my essay.
I did not invite a blog-discussion (see below), 
let alone promised to participate it it; 
I invited people to *read* my essay, and think about it. 
A discussion can come later, but I do not believe in blog debates; 
my impression is that they tend to be merely textual fights.
I'm not interested in them, I'm interested in understanding.

I would be delighted to communicate with anybody who wishes 
to communicate with me (and will not object to that person posting 
our correspondence in public).


2. On the contents of my essay.
I believe that my essay provides a quite extensive analysis
of some central issues, but it does not address all issues.
Its perspective and focus is the internal dynamics of fields,
and the claim is that they can and should be analyzed as such
rather than mixed with personal and external considerations.
Nevertheless, the latter considerations are not ignored.
E.g., it is explicitly stated (although one may disagree of course) 
that awards do not serve the field and/or its participants in the 
dealings with outsiders (i.e., see next issue).

3. On the external effect of awards.
The benefit gained in external dealings when having an "awarded" case
are smaller than the damage caused when we argue for a case that has 
no awards (while the outsiders know that we do have awards). 
In general, bear in mind that *most* excellent researchers
and excellent research do *not* get awards! 
Thus, talking practically and out of some experience, I fail to see
how people may argue that awards benefit *most* of the community. 
They definitely benefit only a tiny minority of the community, 
a minority that is very small also in comparison to all excellent people.

Furthermore, with respect to out-CS dealings, note that the main 
complain that outsiders have is that CS (or TCS) candidates have 
(relatively) few *journal* publication. The CS/TCS advocates answer 
that such is the culture of our field, and they could have answered 
the same wrt awards! 
But note that when we say that we do not value journal publications 
as other fields, we are definitely admitting some fault 
(even if we can justify it or excuse ourselves).
We would need offer no apologies when saying that we have no awards;
on the contrary, we can even feel that we are right and project this.

4. On the internal effect of awards.
Awards do not promote good research. Good research is promoted
by the field's inherent logic (please see my essay for details).
There is no need to "highlight" great achievements, they are
highlighted by their own merits, and highlighting them above
their own merits is wrong (and comes at the expense of other
good research that is being down-graded!). See my essay for more!

5. About non-CS awards.
I was asked about the public effect of Fields Medal, Nobel Awards, 
and Einstein being a rock star. 
(Note that this is an external consideration; clearly, from the  internal 
perspective, the previous item (4) deems all of these as damaging!)
I admit that there is an appealing benefit in popularizing science
via such things, but the question is of the cost (as well as the
actual benefit), both considered here only from the external perspective.
I claim that here too (as in Item (3)), at the last account, 
the trade off is negative. Although at times we catch the eyes of a 
smart child (which we could have done also otherwise if we try harder),
the "benefits" do not lead to a real understanding of what science is about 
(I'm not talking of its details!) but rather to a superficial view 
that promotes no real good. In analogy, like in the "Lord of the Ring"
(or the "Niberlungen Ring"), although it is tempting to try to use
a powerful tool for the good - some things cannot be used that way.
[The last sentence is a metaphor; please don't claim that this
is not a sound "proof"... :-) ]

6. Awards as a tool in fighting the "old boys network".
Somebody claimed that the lack of "official" recognition 
(in the form of awards) means that the "old boys network" dominates.

Well, who do you think dominates the awards???

Seriously, according to my analysis (see essay),
in an autonomous field credit and recognition
is in perfect correlation with achievements.
You may disagree with this analysis, but you cannot ignore it 
and say that the essay does not address this issue.
You may also say that currently TOC is not autonomous but rather 
dominated by a class that bases its power on external forces
(there is no other alternative if you accept my analysis),
but then you have to say why you think that having more
awards will dissolve this problem. In my opinion, common sense 
indicates quite the opposite - it is far easier for a small class 
to seize control of some central mechanisms (e.g., awards) 
than to influence the field in any other way.