Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'

On 2007-11-02, in sci.logic, george wrote:
I fully concur, but I always thought that that was because
I was just used to the old way. I didn't realize I might actually
be right for a change.

Stranger things have happened!

We can all do our bit by occasionally posting sense, and contributing in
interesting threads with arrant pedantry, pertinent technical results,
clarifications, questions, reflections, silliness, greenery, gentle abuse,
helpful hints, meta-commentary, witticisms, inanity, thus luring the vast
hordes of logicians to the news, upon which occurrence they will find
they're hooked, leading indirectly to the reinvigoration of the whole of
Usenet itself.

Part of the appeal of the news is to be found in its motley crew of bizarre
characters, cranks, trolls, people with anger-management problems, and so
on. Alas, not everyone are able to enjoy such a banquet of sociological and
anthropological data with detached amusement, content to stumble upon a
nugget of actual information, a lone word of wisdom, now and then; these
poor individuals retreat -- not to FORMALISM, no -- but to web forums and
such like. Not to mention those who do not even realise that Usenet is not a
Google service... Woe upon us!

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
.

Quantcast