FOM: responding, subscribers, wrestling
friedman at math.ohio-state.edu
Fri Mar 6 02:35:56 EST 1998
>>[request for Pratt to respond to Silver and Feferman]
>>You may be forgetting that I already did, in FOM mail dated respectively
>>Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:12:05 -0800 and Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:16:03 -0800.
>>Apparently not satisfactorily, since neither Silver nor Feferman discussed
>>your (Pratt's) statements.
>Who do you respond to on FOM, Harvey, those you agree with or those you
If someone changes my mind about something significant, I always respond.
>>I am reluctant to let you have the last word defending this kind of
>>pseudo foundations since over 300 people are listening, and some of
>>them might benefit from being warned about this. This may help people
>>see what kind of work has to be done to make structual f.o.m. a reality.
>Oh dear, and here I've gone and left the readers to draw their own
>conclusions. I hope I haven't overestimated their intelligence by as
>much as you've overestimated their number (fom-request's "who" command
>reports 191 readers.)
You didn't add the fom-digest-request's who command, which reports 120
members, for a total of 311 subscribers. I wish it was just as easy to
refute your comments about f.o.m. as it is about fom!
>My apologies to everyone for my part in keeping the tone of this portion
>of the proceedings on a par with professional wrestling. No reflection
>on other FOM threads intended.
Do any categorical foundationalists compete in professional wrestling?
More information about the FOM