🚀 go-pugleaf

I fail to come in over the weekend and look what I miss!  I have never
been called an "ignorant dweeb" before, so hats off to Weemba for this
intriguing and novel insult.  Before replying to him, however, let me 
set a few facts straight.

First, in no way did my earlier note attack Dr. Thurston's professional
or personal reputation.  His credentials (which are impeccable) are not
at issue.  What I criticize is his injection of politics into a technical
notesfiles.  I believe Thurston could have made his posting in an unbiased
way, while still soliciting the comments he wants.  Am I guilty of the same?
Yes, and for this I apologize.  Should I have requested his paper?  Perhaps,
but this does not detract from my criticism.  Finally, if Dr. Thurston took 
my criticism as an impingement of his professional credentials, I sincerely
apologize to him.  This was *not* my intent.

Second, in email to me, Weemba accuses me of calling Thurston a "liar",
"in so many words."  How Weemba can make such an accusation is beyond me.  
By doubting the existence of evidence supporting Thurston's premise (that
military funding is unhealthy), I only meant to illustrate the sharp
*political* differences we have on the issue.  Surely I can disagree with
someone's political position without calling him a liar.  Evidently, Weemba
does not understand the difference.  Perhaps someone, more eloquent than me,
can  explain this to him.  It may stave off further visceral attacks.  Of 
course, I should have been clearer in my original note, and so I am partly
to blame for Weemba's misunderstanding.  If Dr. Thurston took similar
offense, I sincerely apologize to him.  I do not like being called a liar, 
and rarely call someone else one - especially a complete stranger.  Unlike
Weemba, Thurston did not launch an ad hominem attack on me.  

So what did I hope to accomplish with my posting?  It should be obvious, 
but since Weemba missed the point, I will explain.  I thought Thurston's
note, and my reply, might spark an *intelligent* debate on the role of
military funding in mathematics.  Clearly I expected too much from Weemba.  
His colleague, Larsen, has been the only one to address the issue with any
kind of reason.  Finally, Weemba has seen fit to put many words in my mouth. 
I am quite capable of stating my own opinions, and don't need his help. 

As I have already admitted, I was mistaken to place this debate in sci.math. 
For this I am truly grateful to Weemba.  He was most kind to point out the
error of my ways.  The net voters were wise to elect him guardian of sci.math.
By the way, when is the next election?  Surely none of us will challenge
Weemba - for his wisdom is far greater than ours.  Perhaps we should crown
him King of the Net!  But there I go again, getting carried away.  In America
we don't have kings.  In America we also allow freedom of expression - unless,
of course, Weemba deems it "ignorant."  In this case the offender should kneel
before His High Holiness of Horseshit and beg forgiveness.  Jeesh!

Since I am not an ardent reader of sci.math, I did not know who Weemba was.  I
have since learned.  In addition to being the self-appointed guardian of that
notesfile, he is also an arrogant and conceited ass without equal.  In email
to me he twice speaks of a "fan club... who loves watching me [Weemba] make 
dweebs piss in their pants."  This is the most ludicrous statement I have ever
read on the net.  Who in the hell does he think he is?  Please pardon my harsh
language, but I do not take kindly to vicious personal attacks.  I realize I
am myself guilty of personally attacking Weemba, but if anyone ever needed
chopping at the knees, this character is he.  Of course, this is only *my*
opinion.  

Weemba also assails Computer Science, accusing it of excessive dependence on
the military.  This is simply not true.  (Please note that I am not calling
him a liar.  He is merely ignorant.)  His attacks smack of an "Us (Math) 
versus Them (CS)" mentality.  What is his problem?  Are we not all scientists,
albeit with different political beliefs?  Perhaps this level of reasoning is
above him; I do not know.  

Finally, a piece of free advice to Weemba: Next time you see an "ignorant
dweeb," please make sure you're not seeing your own reflection in the VDT.  


- Steve ("the dweeb from Illinois") Ashby
  Dept. of Computer Science
  Univ. of Illnois
  ashby@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu