W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Observations about facts in genomics

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:21:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFKQJ8=tPFYbe64M2jWKR36TksVt6LLc32BF8RF=LiAsSjcxhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanruttenberg@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:38 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 22 March 2013 12:05, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > ....
>> > I am not saying that science presented as fact is infallible. Of course
>> it is.
>>
>> I think you mean, of course it isn't.
>>
>
> Indeed I do. Damn you double negation ;)
>

Of course, science presented as fact isn't infallible.
Of course, science presented as fact is fallible.

Just in case following the pronouns across email messages is worse than
getting double negations right.

>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 05:22:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:01 UTC