|
|
Wherein Virgil the Grammarian further elaborates his opinions on the
neomathematics of humor.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:47:52 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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'.
~v~~
|
|