🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeff Dalton writes:

   Minsky's posting was on the table lookup machine.  My point was
   (roughly) that people didn't respond to McCullough and Minksy
   on TLMs the way the responded to Putnam on rocks.

I do not think your "point" is worth further discussion.

   >   		...  Another factor, which I think is significant,
   >   though not sufficient, is that it was important to some people
   >   that Putnam be wrong and not so important that you (and Minsky)
   >   be wrong.
   >
   >Here is a list of people who have posted something on the subject "A
   >rock implements every FSA", in case it helps you to be somewhat more
   >specific than the usual "some people" generalizations.

   I take it that you'd prefer if I named names.

No, take it that I would rather prefer that you discontinue your
ridiculous generalizations.
						...  But why should
   I make it more of a personal dispute than it already is?

Why stop when you are having fun? You started this, trying to
show that some contributors to these newsgroups are "in the grips
of some ideology". Either go all the way, or back off.

   Anyway, since you obviously have access to all the postings, why 
   don't you tell us how many of these people agreed with Putnam?  

   Now, how many posted disagreements with Daryl's claims about the 
   complexity of, and mappings involving, the data in the TLM?

   Also, I'd still be interested on how many attacked the TT in
   the "TT is a scientific criterion" thread (or any other recent
   TT thread).

No, thank you. I have nothing to prove. If you do, feel free to
fetch the archives from nexus.yorku.ca and read through them. For
my part, I will ignore anything else you post on this topic.

cheers.		oz
---
cin, cout, cerr? croc.	| electric: oz@sis.yorku.ca
	       - anon	| ph:[416] 736 2100 x 33976