James,
Your answers to Hal and Tim have been enlightening.
And your attempt to move away from nominalism to improve precision of language and to ward off inadverdent undermining of fundamentals, is admirable, that is, if I understand your objections to Hal's proposals correctly.
John
Good Sir, what frightfully polite eloquence have you bathed this august gathering of gentle spirits? [...]
Errr..., what'd he say?
sdw
Stephen, I think you understood exactly what he said. I'll explain why he said it the way he did. John thinks that James may have some good ideas, but he's too excited, and he's not explaining them clearly. John asked James to calm down, and suggested some particular points that James wasn't explaining in his excitement over the error he sees other people falling into. John is talking this way so James will understand that John is trying to be on his side. If he said something like "you idiot," or "you raving clod", there would be little chance of James calming down enough to understand John's point. The way John spoke shows that he is familiar with many of the problems people fall into when they hold a heated conversation on the net. Many people mistake heat and excitement for disagreement and personal attack. John is doing a good job of pointing out to James that people are interested in what he has to say, and that communication will be clearer of if he takes a deep breath and figures out what people are really asking him for. Thanks John, Chris BTW, I think John and James are right: reputation is not quantifiable, it's interpreted by each observer differently. Credentials on the other hand, can be transfered, and it makes sense to codify them so other people can understand what recommendations they represent.