From veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi Thu Nov 3 06:43:12 1994 Message-Id: From: veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi Subject: Re: your posting and Holmes' reply Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 13:43:04 +0200 (EET) In-Reply-To: <199411031105.AA21243@access1.digex.net> from "Logical Language Group" at Nov 3, 94 06:05:22 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2442 Status: RO > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 06:05:22 -0500 > From: Logical Language Group > To: veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi > Subject: your posting and Holmes' reply > > I haven't read your post, but I found Randall Holmes' reply to it > incredibly pompous. Even if your ideas are wrong, he could have > expressed it more politely (I read what he said as basically just telling > you to "shut up".) > I received a short note from him afterwards, not quite an apology, but I guess he was trying to soften the impact somewhat. RH>From catseye.idbsu.edu!holmes Tue Nov 1 01:48:29 1994 RH> RH> When I read my post, I felt that I was pontificating from too high a RH> level, though. An examination of ways in which you feel that Prolog RH> is related to Loglan-style languages might be instructive, for example! RH> RH> --Randall Holmes His original choice of words wasn't perhaps the most appropriate, but I think that there are moments when at least I need to told to shut up. Nothing is more frustrating than to find out I've been on a wild goose chase for weeks, just because noone has had the guts to spell it out clearly enough. OTOH, it is easier to take it from an outsider. > I find your contribution on this and other subjects rather more coherent > and more often correct than what others write, so feel free to ignore Holmes. > I been wrong enough many enough times just because I haven't read the material I have carefully enough - this doesn't imply that the said material is free of errors :-) Some of the problems we have been discussing are quite tough, and I have found it comforting that even people like Russell & Whitehead did go amiss while handling rather similar ones (I just read Wittgenstein and also von Wright's commentary on Wittgenstein's own errors) > pc is long-winded and sometimes indecisive, but I am glad HE is the logician > in our camp, and Holmes is the one is TLI's camp. I think it better to > encourage people to try things and to express their ideas than to chop > off people like Holmes seems to (and not just with you). That way we all > learn. > It would take more than Holmes to shut me up if I'd disagree with him. I've had to weather handling which was a magnitude rougher. > Even with Loglan/Lojban, we are talking about language first, and logic > second. Our design has to remember this fact. > I agree. > lojbab > Veijo