In article <email@example.com>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:59:42 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > >In article <email@example.com>, > > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:01:31 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker" > >> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> > >> >Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > >> > > > > >> > Sentences follow from the postulates > >> >(axioms) of a theory or they don't, assuming the sentence is well formed > >> >in the theory. > >> > >> Which sentence doesn't strike me as very well formed at all. > > > >It is sufficiently 'well formed' to convey its intended meaning, in > >contrast to Zick's, which are often ill formed to conceal that they > >convey no meaning. > > It is sufficiently well formed to convey its lack of form.
That Zick claims to finds it difficult to understand does not make it difficult to understand.