FOM: recursive vs computable

[Joseph Shoenfield]

     Steffan Lempp writes:
     > Of course, there was a PR aspect to this..., which is why Soare was
so vigorously attacked.
     I think the last part of the statement is incorrect.   At any rate, I
don't see anything wrong with advocating a change in the name of recursion
theory because it will increase the resources alloted to that subject, as
long as on also considers possible negative results of the change, such as
producing confusion to beginners in the subject.
     If I critcized anything in Soare's behaviour, it was that after
becoming convinced that the change was justified and important, he
attempted to bring about the change wherever he could, instead of waiting
for there to be a clear consensus on the necessity of the change.   This
is not a crime or a sin, but I think it shows some disrespect for the
opinions of those who oppose the change.
     Steffan, I propose a question to you which, if you choose to answer,
might clarify the question of whether Soare did this.   Was the choice 
of the name of the conference next summer due in part yo Soare's urging?