FOM: remarks on FOM procedures
Stephen G Simpson
simpson at math.psu.edu
Tue May 16 15:37:14 EDT 2000
Dear FOM Subscribers,
The statements of Wednesday 10 May 2000 18:21:05 -0400 (EDT) may have
caused some confusion. We now wish to re-emphasize that nothing in
the May 10 statements or the April 5 agreement should be construed as
inhibiting the free and open discussion of any and all f.o.m. issues
in the FOM forum.
The point has been well made by FOM participant Joe Shipman in
off-line correspondence, as follows:
> I would suggest that you emphasize in the summary posted on the FOM
> list the following points, for the benefit of those who may not
> read the entire formal agreement carefully:
> 1) The requirement for a professional tone does not imply a change
> in either the level of English fluency or the degree of formality
> necessary in a post; nonstandard or informal or colloquial English
> are still fine (after all, one of the model settings cited is a
> colloquium, where the language is nothing if not colloquial).
> 2) A posting does not need to have "positive" f.o.m. content:
> sincere and carefully stated questions and requests for
> clarification, background information, etc., are acceptable, as
> they would be from a student at a seminar.
We also wish to remark that FOM is a discussion group. It has never
been and is not now a scholarly journal, or an electronic bulletin
board. FOM postings need not contain original mathematical results.
FOM subscribers remain free to post any message to FOM, so long as
their messages are polite in tone and have some content related to
issues and programs in foundations of mathematics.
The FOM Editorial Board
-- M. Davis
-- H. Friedman
-- S. Simpson
More information about the FOM