🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1efg1gINNm6c@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
	[elided]

Your post raises many, many issues, which I simply cannot address without
losing the focus of the discussion.  When I say:

>:Computer science is related to mathematics only by
>: historical accident.

And you respond: 

>Yup, those mere "accidents of history", like Turing and Von Neumann.

I fear the discussion is becoming irrational.  I am sorry if my
statement offends you.  I am trying to express my opinions about the
history of computer science and its future direction.  It is an
obscure statement, but it is not meant to be insulting.

The fundamental motivation for my previous post was to address Herman
Rubin's charge of "criminal negligence".  My one and only point, then
and now, is that Herman Rubin has _no_ _right_ to charge computer
science with "criminal negligence".  He ASSUMES computer science has
only one responsibility, to mathematics (his mathematics) and
therefore, neglecting that responsibility is "criminal negligence".

This statement is unacceptable.  We cannot have a reasonable discussion
if you assume our wishes are subordinate to yours.  This is why we react
insultingly, and overreact, because you are STANDING ON OUR TURF and we
want you to BACK OFF.

You see only our overreaction, without understanding the cause, and it
creates the frustration you expressed in your post.  So you overreact back.

Once again.  If you call us "criminally negligent" we will feel insulted.
When we feel insulted, we will be uncooperative.  When we are uncooperative,
you will get frustrated.  When you get frustrated, you will talk LOUDER.

Is that clear?  Do you understand this vicious circle?  Do you understand
how to make it _stop_?


Adam