Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!msb
From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: Godel, Escher, Bach problem
Message-ID: <1065@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-Jan-86 22:33:58 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.1065
Posted: Fri Jan 24 22:33:58 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 22:47:36 EST
References: <8431@ucla-cs.ARPA> <11461@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 23
Summary: GEB is a very good book

Somebody posted a problem from "Goedel, Escher, Bach" and somebody
else complained in this way that there were no responses:

> >		Why is it that ... whenever any resonable problem 
> >		is asked, it is promptly ignored?

To this Matthew P. Wiener (weemba@brahms.UUCP) replied:

> I couldn't imagine duller problems than DHs.  In fact, I can't imagine
> anyone publically admitting they ever read GEB!

I'm tempted to reply at flaming length, but will just say that I find
[DM]r. Wiener's taste as bad as his spelling.  I have not only *read* GEB,
I consider it one of the most interesting books I have *ever* read.
Am I "anyone" enough for you, and is net.math public enough for you,
or do I have to mention the Pulitzer Prize committee too?

Mark Brader, B.Math(C.S.), M.Math(C.S.)

P.S.  - Let's not have 52 followups saying "I agree with Brader" or
	"I agree with Wiener".  This is the first posting of this
	kind on my machine.  If you want to express simple agreement,
	use mail.  Mail to whoever you agree with, and make us both happy.