🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Btuux0.HH4@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
> Mr. Irving is free to speak elsewhere, and does.

  But I get the feeling that this non-academic non-historian would not be 
  able to speak anywhere if Jeff Shallit had his way.  

  If someone claims something, then I look at the argument that "proves"
  it or the evidence that supports/refutes it and draw my own conclusions.  

  In the case of Rushton, I laughed.  In the case of the gender-difference
  brain-size study, I laughed.  In the case of a new study that "shows"
  that babies have a certain amount of innate mathematical ability, I
  laughed.  When presented with certain religious arguments over the years,
  I laughed.  In the past, when I've happened upon a morning talk show with
  guests that spouted certain controversial things, including fellows that 
  shared Irving's beliefs, I laughed.  When I hear some of the arguments
  that the Black Action Defence Committee or the National Action Committee
  for the Status of Women make, I laugh.  And in this case too, I would 
  most probably laugh. 
  
> Would Mr. Kunze welcome cranks coming to
> speak in his department?  I'm the colloquium chairman for the CS department:
> should colloquium slots be allocated to anyone, no matter how dishonest or 
> inept. 

  It's not really the nature of mathematical work to have controversial
  cranks.  Of course, one might argue that quantum mechanics folks are
  on the fringe.  ;-)  

> Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

  Thanks for the advice.  I really appreciate it.

                                                        Herb...