Allen Roy wrote:
> From: "george murphy" <email@example.com>
> > I see no justification for posting second hand derogatory comments
> > of this sort here. I don't know whether your cryptic "=anonymously" means
> > that you didn't tell him who Howard Van Till was or that (as is the case)
> > your friend remains anonymous. If the latter then this is subject to the
> > same condemnation as most anonymous letters. If the former, then you
> > have saved a lot of trouble by noting that the source of the comments is
> > astrophysicist who is certainly familiar with elementary mathematical
> > concepts.
> It is anonymous both ways.
> When people make derogatory statements like Van Till did it doesn't matter
> his 'qualifications.' Statements must stand for themselves and not
> according to one's position of authority.
> Only those who fall for the false logic of appealing to authority would be
> cowed into submission by the notation of qualification.
Wrong. Howard made some general criticisms of a book. Your anonymous
correspondent did not respond to those criticisms but only made snide remarks
about the critic, a sufficient reply to which on my part was to point out the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 11:13:38 EDT