ps. for those who might not know, all the quotes below are easy to get
at by simply querying the ontolog-forum archive for the term 'azamat' in
the field 'sender'. (01)
Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
> Azamat wrote:
>> This forum mostly consists of very intelligent and polite people.
> indeed! and just to support this thesis, recall a few strikingly clear,
> original, deep and enlightening messages posted here by some of the most
> intelligent and polite people (thus not me!):
> "The fact is in your short reply you created too much nonsense for a
> learned person <...>I suggested that you were more competent in
> theoretical physics than in ontology. Of course, this is not a ''naive
> physics'', but a real science asking for a real mind able to master the
> real world. If want to show more nonsense, just ask."
> "<...> you have to read funny musings on silence in music, etc. It looks
> we need to radically upgrade the level of our discussions to meet the
> requirements of the OntoForum."
> "It seems the forum needs not only more professional focusing on
> ontology but some patience to others positions, worldviews, and projects."
> "It appears the proper name of this forum is gablog, or how <...> and
> others are going to waste their time."
> "I just wonder how somebody might be so ridiculously anserine. The
> thread is worth to be renamed as ''logical goat and sheep, and how
> harmful they are for the cause of ontology''.
> "like it or not, you in the irreal place where most things are badly
> perverted. Where some AI debunked formal logicians metamorphosed into
> bad ontologists, where logical drool is presented as the frontier of
> semantics and ontology, where 'reality' is an abusive word, and where
> one chronic self-promoter, having comic incognizance of ontology, will
> be constantly making his logical crap on you, adding insult if you try
> to resist."
> "I am surprised to mention these common things to the such high quality
> researcher as you are."
> "Don't tax your mind beyond it's limit."
> "rather strange that this principal issue in semantics has been
> overlooked by our hyperactive disputant"
> ... amazingly polite, no?
>> So any infelicity can be excused and pardoned, of course, if it is not
>> repeated several times. Since somebody sensible should try avoid
>> such ... convoluted wordings:
> "- '''Quantity''' is the state of being much, or the property of a thing
> marked by a magnitude or plurality (number). By its definition, quantity
> is an ontological (general) term [sic] used to refer to any type of
> quantitative properties or attributes of things."
> "Since there is no meaning (intension or extension) without context, or
> universe of discourse, possible worlds, circumstances, formally
> presented as the linguistic context of use, or closed context (Boolean
> algebra), theory, or consistent theory, formal (mathematical or logical)
> or factual (historical, social, physical, etc). "
> "The UFO is designed as the world knowledge groundwork or unifying
> semantic platform within which could be integrated the particular
> knowledge (sciences) of the physical, biological, mental, and cultural
> worlds, to be encoded as the entity data types and major rules of
> operations in the reasoning systems of high-level intelligence,
> fundamental to the Intelligent World"
>> It is taxing your mind to read these sorts of messages. For you need
>> to read it again and again, and finally put your best interpretation,
>> having nothing to do with the message.
> "The world is the greatest unbounded but single entity; "
> & "First of all, that there are appearances or phenomena, chaotic,
> unintelligible, and unreal, and laying behind them stable, intelligible
> and real realities."
> & "There are reality and irreality. These traditions are dealing with
> unreality; so they hardly ever can be right."
> & "Repeat again, there is Reality (Being, Existence, the Universe,
> Cosmos) and reality, the World and world."
>> Still, i think there can be something original in your messages; but
>> it is your duty to send me a well formulated thought.
> indeed. you were right when you once said, "My message might have been
> too enigmatic."
> it is also tempting to be evil and recall, once again, an opinion about
> your own book posted at amazon's:
> "This book is seriously flawed. I could not work out if the author was a
> mathemetician dabbling (very poorly) with philosophy, or a muddled
> philosopher bumbling his way around computer science."
> not advertising myself as a very intelligent and polite (especially not
> the latter) person, i'd like to suggest that you perform some reflexive
> thinking before you, again, pour a bucket of waste on other members'
> heads, some of whom do appear much more intelligent and polite than you.
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wacek Kusnierczyk, MD PhD (04)
Phone: +47 73591875, +47 72574609 (05)
Department of Computer and Information Science (IDI)
Faculty of Information Technology, Mathematics and Electrical Engineering (IME)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Sem Saelands vei 7, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
Room itv303 (06)
Bioinformatics & Gene Regulation Group
Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine (IKM)
Faculty of Medicine (DMF)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Laboratory Center, Erling Skjalgsons gt. 1, 7030 Trondheim, Norway
Room 231.05.060 (07)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)