John, List:
Up until the off-List message that you sent me late Saturday evening, we
were having a respectful and substantive discussion despite our ongoing
disagreements. I am disappointed that this is no longer the case and
inclined to refrain from any further engagement after one more attempt
hmidt"
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Modal EGs in Delta vs. Gamma
John, List:
JFS: Since your article has just been accepted for publication, you probably
still have time to make a few corrections.
Actually, my paper was accepted for publication (after review and revision) six
months ago, and I s
John, List:
JFS: Since your article has just been accepted for publication, you
probably still have time to make a few corrections.
Actually, my paper was accepted for publication (after review and revision)
six months ago, and I see no need to correct anything at this point
anyway--I stand by
Jon, List,
Since your article has just been accepted for publication, you probably still
have time to make a few corrections. Following are some suggestions.
JAS: Indeed, given that Peirce already had a notation for metalanguage in his
1903 Gamma EGs--in fact, five years earlier--how could
John, List:
JFS: If Peirce thought that the notations for his Gamma graphs of 1903 were
adequate to represent everything in Delta graphs, why did he claim that the
he needed to add a fourth part to his system of EGs?
If the Gamma EGs of 1903 were adequate to represent metalanguage (as I have
