Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site tove.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!qumix!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!tove!dsn
From: dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Intelligence
Message-ID: <267@tove.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 03:27:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: tove.267
Posted: Tue Jul  9 03:27:09 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 15:54:19 EDT
References: <456@ttidcc.UUCP> <457@ttidcc.UUCP> <1586@hao.UUCP>
Reply-To: dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau)
Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD
Lines: 28

In article <528@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes:

> ... Apparently you're defining "technical subject" to
>be any subject that requires calculus after first stating that calculus  is
>only required for technical subjects.  Circular.

I do consider the kinds of subjects you mentioned to be technical.
Your assumption that I do so because they require calculus is incorrect.

>It saddens me to see a professor with so  little  sympathy  for  those  who
>aren't  comfortable  with  his subject area. ...

How the hell do you get THAT out of my saying introductory calculus isn't
"advanced math"?  That makes me feel quite indignant.

>I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  I could give you a lot of reasons
>why it would be a better world if everyone studied advanced psychology, but
>I doubt you'd agree. ...

Again I feel offended.  For your information, I just finished serving on the
dissertation committee for a Ph.D. student in psychology.


Are you trying to get me into an argument?
-- 
Dana S. Nau,  Computer Science Dept.,  U. of Maryland,  College Park, MD 20742
ARPA:  dsn@maryland				CSNet:  dsn@umcp-cs
UUCP:  {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn	Phone:  (301) 454-7932