Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum


William Elliot wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, futurist wrote:
>
> > sorry about that--that was the first time i've used Google Groups'
> > quick-reply feature, which i assumed would just quote the entire
> > previous message. anyway, this was a reply to Torkel Franzen's
> > distinction between contructive reductio and indirect proof. there is
> > another post which is in response to you which has all the appropriate
> > quotations in place.
> >
> Google quick-reply feature for math, science and serious discussion
> sucks big time.

so i've discovered--believe me i'm as big a fan of proper quotation as
you are (although i'm suprised that your newsreader doesn't let you
switch between threaded/new-arrivals on the fly by means of a
convenient keyboard shortcut--even when messages are properly quoted i
like to see the tree structure)

> Don't use it except for the frivolous of yack yack
> newgoupies for which it's designed. Upon hearing Google was getting
> greedy with public stock offering, I knew it was going to deteriorate.
> Indeed and alas, my foreknowledge wasn't disappointed.

while google groups' (beta) interface leaves much to be desired, one
can hardly complain that the massive archive that was dejanews returned
and was expanded, (and at no cost to the user)

>
> Use the include reply feature and trim out of it only that context that
> has been resolved or nor longer pertinent to the continuation.
> Related reading at http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm

i know the nettiquite pretty well--i just don't know google's interface
that well yet.

>
> I hadn't noticed any replies addressed to me.
> Note, I read by new arrivals and not by thread.

sorry, the quotes were there but the "____ wrote:" header was
missing--this is the post here:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/17b42846e1d3247f


>
> BTW the way, using capital "I" would polish your posts
> toward appearing studious and scholarly.

there are new and developing standards of language online. (consult
Crystal's book on language and the internet for an attempt at a
scholarly overview of it) i choose between 'i' and 'I' depending on the
level of formality i wish to convey. on sci.logic, which is a
discussion group and not an academic journal, i choose 'i' as it
conveys the level of formality at which i wish to discuss things--i do
not, however, speak in 13375p3ak or other such gibberish, nor do i
abuse traditional style to the point of obscuring content. the
'appearance' of studiousness is largely irrelevant.

.

Relevant Pages