If you don't mind, I'll just skip the whole longitude-spherical problem; it
has been discussed ad nauseam.Don't object, I never considered this as a problem, the question, not the problem is about the possible links between VMS and "the Copernical revolution", I would say. Is VMS dealing with astrology, astronomy, both? This is a relevant question (no problem is relevant, it s part of my logic ).
jean-yves artero wrote:
> ...
> You are in your logic, but this only yours, not the logic of everybody, ...
Would you please explain what you mean by "logic" and "logical"? I fail to
grasp your concept.Sure, Elmar, please forgive my poor English. By logic I mean a manner to raise and try and solve questions. Thus, please again, see above; I have to acknowledge that this is precisely one of my pets ( you won ) since I consider that this is at the same time part of the input ( there is a thing or an idea per se, but it does exist only if and how you consider it ) and of the output ( the result of the whole demonstration or experiment is influenced by the way you did it, but primarily by the way you considered it ). BTW Jacques, pax to Derrida. Elmar, I am moreover a fan of "fuzzy logic"; did you hear about this? Think so, the right answer is often not yes, or no, but something in between. Hope this helps.
> ...
> Finally, people don t need to be told to read Wikipedia, this was and is unpolite.
What am I supposed to do if I perceive a relevant lack of factual knowledge
in posters on a certain thread? Let them go? Explain it myself?! Why not
point them to a source of information, more competently and elegantly
compiled than I could provide? I feel this is more polite than letting them
go ahead and make fools of themselves.You are not serious, here, I would say (but perhaps I am wrong). Anyway, this is not that important, but I still consider that when we are discussing (and on this list we are, I hope) it s better to explain again and again than to offend people. Are you sure you are right and they are wrong? You are not the truth's owner (or prove it), thus perhaps your way of considering the matter is not the better...and theirs is not the worst...
And you commented on my signature line:
"You have no right to an uninformed opinion." (Steve Dutch)
as follows:
> This IMO leads to Inquisition and dictatorship. And not to the solution of VMS riddle. Jean
>
>>PS I have the right to an other opinion that yours. I am a free man.Don t try to intimidate me. No use. Try to speak about VMS. My point is that VMS is Ptoleamaic and Copernical. What is yours?
>
Perhaps it is necessary to quote Steve Dutch's source in length (from
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/dutchrules.htm):
> You have no right to an uninformed opinion
>
> Patriotism is not the last refuge of the scoundrel. "I have a right to my opinion" is. It's amazing how often people, backed into a corner by logic or evidence, will resort to "I have a right to my opinion," asserting their right to cling to their opinion despite the evidence.
>
> You have no right to an uninformed opinion. If you are going to hold an opinion on an issue, you have a moral obligation to make it an informed opinion. You have no right to go into a voting booth armed with half-baked, unsupported opinions. ...
>
> Think about it. ... Money isn't the problem; superficial, uninformed, lazy people are.
So, the thrust of the quotation is not to legally forbid any manner of
speech, but to point out the "moral obligation" of the speaker to first
inform himself before he participates. You are being ask! ed to check
yourself, if you dutifully pondered your statements, before speaking.
Uninformed statements are a waste of breath on the speaker's part, and a
waste of time for the audience. You have to take into account that people
might actually listen to what you're saying.
To construct this to mean intimidation, "inquisition and dictatorship" is...
a matter of debate, IMHO.Sure, that's why I told you that instead of claiming that your "equal in the list" has a wrong opinion, you had rather or/and better demonstrate it. You did not...Moreover, and this again is "logic", my point was about your initial quotation (the sentence at the end of your mails) and not about the whole paragraph.
The isolated sentence again is very dangerous. What is for you an uninformed opinion? An idea which is different from yours? Please morover remember: I just told you to argue, asked you to argue, to form, to shape your opinion...
Elmar, I think finally this is enough about it. I think I was right to bring this debate on list, because it raises well known but hard to solve every day's questions ( not problems ) of method. Would you not object, I consider that this "thread" is closed now. I hope that for everybody in the list our initial disagreement is clear now, and that it will not be overevaluated....
Cheers,
ElmarCheers, Jean
--
Elmar Vogt / Königswarterstr. 18 / 90762 Fürth / GERMANY
elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx / www.beamends.de / Tel.: (++49/0)911 - 31 52 58
"You have no right to an uninformed opinion." (Steve Dutch)
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list