|
|
In article <ie9ef255qn6f5d57ddqvhsrn88emhgrc21@xxxxxxx>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:52:04 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >In article <sv6cf298g30f6s3e9l57oldc2gn4233jf2@xxxxxxx>,
> > Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:49:03 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <dqkbf2973b61f7od7tcmqoh0apqss9jnod@xxxxxxx>,
> >> > Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:33:26 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> At least I'm witty.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Half a loaf,...
> >> >>
> >> >> Allow me to complete the thought. Half a loaf of mathematics is better
> >> >> than a full loaf of modern mathematics. Or even a baker's dozen.
> >> >
> >> >But Zick only has half a loaf in the wit department, in any sense of
> >> >"wit".
> >>
> >> I'd rather be half a wit than none.
> >
> >With the often futile struggles Zick makes to show any wit, he should be
> >happy to settle for any.
>
> Whereas you appear quite content with none.
Perhaps none that Zick has the wit to recognize, but that, with Zick's
evident lack of wits, hardly constitutes evidence..
>
> >Zick tries to put down what he calls "modern mathematics", but he
> >doesn't know enough about it to do so. That shows little wit at all.
>
> Certainly on your part.
Zick is the one proving himself ignorant of what he criticizes, i.e.,
mathematics, which he misrepresents and disparages in repeated fits of
'sour grapes'.
|
|