[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Back to basics - or musings of an old bore
> [Jim Reeds:] Manly did not claim a solution. I have his 1931
> Speculum paper in front of me. [...] I have read several
> solution claims, and this is not at all like them. [...] I don't
> think there is anything in this paragraph that Stolfi (say)
> would disagree with.
Agreed 100%. (All my speculations about Manly were based on Karl's
> and indeed, this paragraph touches many of the issues discussed
> on this list all the time: what language could it be in, and the
> need for photocopies.
Sigh. Put it that way, it does seem that there has been no progress
in the last 70 years...
All the best,