On 11/8/2013 2:21 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <email@example.com>, > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > >> From the catholic point of view we have to be happy that you got rid of Prof. >> Riehl [...] and one can only wish that he will not be replaced by a >> like-minded person. Because this sort of men is able to cause much damage, as >> you have experienced with Riehl over many years. [...] The theologians of >> Kiel may convince themselves what they have got and may look how they can >> live with him. Further we cannot know whether divine Providence places just >> such radical in Protestant universities in order to accelerate the >> undermining and decay of Protestantism. Would we be interested to hinder >> that? Not at all! >> [...] The government of the grand duke of Baden should be informed in a >> private way (by your friend, the member of parliament) of the fact that a >> pupil and friend of Prof. Riehl (D. Foerster) has been sentenced because >> of lèse-majesté. This should be a reason to meet the candidate recommended >> by Prof. Riehl with greatest suspiciousness. In the senate it may be >> preferable not to touch this point. >> [Cantor to Prof. Dr. F.X. Heiner, Reverend Father, 31 Dec. 1895] >> >> >> Regards, WM > > WM seems more interested in religious history that in mathematics. > Pehaps he should better be posting to alt.theism. >
In some ways, who could blame him?
Kronecker had "followers". Weierstrass had "followers". Hilbert had "followers". The list goes on to this day. I am almost certain that Woodin has "followers". Shelah has made a few remarks about the standpoint of the California school.
The problem with WM is that he is not an equal opportunity critic. With him, it is a one pony show.