Mrtennis, I am sorry I upset your sensibilities; sensibilities seemingly rooted in political correctness. Beyond that, I offer no apology for what I wrote. Moreover, I believe you could not be more mistaken in your characterization of what I wrote, or the issue at hand; certainly, as concerns the issue of logic, or it's absence. And yes, even mathematics, or it's absence; issues that you raise in your own disagreeable comment about what I wrote. Why don't we start by practicing what we preach?
On the issue of disagreeability: Kindly explain to me how making an arguably disagreeable comment in response to someone else's, likewise, disagreeable comment about a publication's worth is more deserving of your scrutiny and lecturing than the original offense. Particularly when the publication in question is one which has been, faults aside, unquestionably influential in a positive way. (And yes, IMO anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is a curmudgeon with his head in the sand). Notice that I said IMO; just as I did when I made my original comments. Comments that you found so troublesome.
So, the basis of your argument is that the views which I "attacked" are opinions, and thus not provable. I made it clear that my comments are my opinion. So, what exactly is the problem? Additionally, my comments were an attempt to encourage someone with no knowledge about this publication to explore what it has to offer; a positive endeavor, I think. More positive than the unfounded, knee-jerk negativity expressed by many. That, to me, is logic of the highest order.
Now, on to the subject of mathematics: $14.95?
Peace.
