At around 5/2/06 9:52 am, ken hanly wrote:
> Zeilberger just writes stuff that is so transparently wrong and ignorant
> that one wonders why anyone would consider it worth posting.
>
Methinks his opinion was much more worthy of posting than your rant in
response! To latch on to the least relevant point (about the function of
philosopher-mathematicians over time) betrays perhaps the lack of a more
substantial argument. Then we have the claim about W' significant
contributions to FOM. Examples? As for Sokal's prank "deconstructing
the postmodernists" well, if that is the defense of it, then it falls to
its own criticism if that be valid (which it is not since it is not a
critique at all).
Sokal was a mere bully in the matter under discussion, and your
reference to me above is nothing but a defense in the same vein.
--ravi
--
If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by
substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!
