the prime calcula/his citadel and other quotes

Gerry Quinn · 18 Jan 2011, 21:08 · from 2011-January.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: gerryq at indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:08:21 -0000
Subject: (urth) the prime calcula/his citadel and other quotes
References: <SNT123-W5091AC600F2946FD25B303CFF70 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <91CACF1A90F9478B964BC666FCB1E3E8@jill>

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>Gerry Quinn:

> > The block towers of small children were not the metaphor.  Nor do I 
> > delight
>>in knocking them down.
>
>>When some adult constructs something which they intend to be part of a
>>load-bearing structure, I consider that I'm doing them a favour pointing 
>>out
>>reasons why it needs to be modified befure being usable as such.
>
> Gerry I will take your word that you do not feel delight in criticizing 
> the theories of others
> but rather feel you are performing a public service. I think if you could 
> be truly honest here
> you could admit to other human emotions than pure altruism in your 
> motivation.

If you are going to call me a liar, there is no need for a preamble telling 
me that you will take my word.

As for my motives, I'm here because I'm interested in discussing the works 
of Gene Wolfe, in the interest of better understanding of them.  I claim no 
particular altruism in this regard; this understanding will benefit me as 
much as others.  I am not here to trample on peoples' ideas.

> You see your role as something like that of a building inspector. I get 
> that. Still I hope you
> understand that the inspectors also need inspecting. I have not, as of 
> yet, noticed that you find
> any theory (other than your own) to pass inspection. They start at "highly 
> questionable" and descend
> downward from there. If I have missed your evaluation of some (other than 
> your own) theories as "good"
> or higher, please let me know. Otherwise I'm sure you can understand the 
> need for an inspection of
> the inspector with such relentlessly negative evaluations.

It is possible that my interpretive skills, such as they are, are biased 
towards the analytic and that this makes it look to some people like I am 
always picking flaws in their grand schemes.  In my defence I will point out 
that the elements of the text I find that seem to contradict these schemes 
were placed there by Gene Wolfe, and not by me.

Also, it may be old fashioned of me, but I do not believe in cluttering 
mailing lists with "+1"s and equivalent. Probably I should be more 
forthcoming in praising ideas that seem good to me.  However, I do not 
believe that your characterisation of my posts as "relentlesly negative 
evaluations" is correct.  Furthermore, I try to keep my observations 
specific - when I find something that is unworkable in a theory, it may be 
that the theory can be modified to find a way around it, and I have noted 
this on more than one occasion.

When it comes to posting oleagineous congratulations, your abilities 
certainly exceed mine.  But frankly, I would be perturbed if you praised my 
ideas, because in my opinion your encomia tend to be inversely correlated 
with the usefulness and plausibility of the ideas you laud.

- Gerry Quinn

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net