Re: tech: logic matters

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>This is an example of an ad hominum argument which carries no logical
>weight with me, and a good argument  for the committee for language
>design, (CLD) where personal differences could be resolved and business
>transacted.


Why do you think a committe would lead to the resolution of personal
differences.  Most committees have exactly the opposite effect and
enhance suhc differences.

pc and Carter go back a long way with the mutual disrespect, which is I
believe only humorously ad hominem.  The two of them have different
assumptions on what it means to be a logical language.  pc has the
credentials, and the knowledge that JCB agreed with him more than with
Carter.  pc is also our final arbiter on matters logical.  So in case of
pc vs. anyone else, there is no need for a committee- you will need someone
who can convince pc (who is nothing if not open minded on most issues).

It was pc who dubbed carters Loglan efforts as "Nalgol" because he "got
Loglan all backwards".  Since Carter thereafter used the label Nalgol himself,
I have alwasy presumed that no offense was taken.

This is NOT something that can be settled by a committee.  If logic has a
standard of right and wrong, then we have to support that standard.  If
math uses a different standard, then someone should argue for a  DIFFERENT
short form for that standard.  I can't tell in the messages flying by whether
that is what has resulted from this diuscussion.  But the decision as to
what "ro" means is basically up to pc - on this matter, he IS the CLD.

lojbab