[GiNaC-devel] web page
Vladimir V. Kisil
V.Kisil at leeds.ac.uk
Thu Oct 6 13:03:19 CEST 2022
Dear Richard,
Thanks for considering my proposal. I am not challenging your
right to believe that there is a drastic different between
"uncensored, free, and competitive" and "censored, oppressed, and
state-dictated" medias. Although being able (and actually addicted to)
monitor English-/Russian-/Ukrainian- language sources for decades I
have some doubts in it. I am admitting, that German media may be
more balanced (possibly, with some skill to read between the lines).
Furthermore, I am not impressed by references to opinions of Nobel
prize or Field medal winners. These people get their recognition for a very
specific skills to think about "spherical cows in vacuum", which are
quite far from the discussed topic. Also, if you wish to make
a balanced picture through celebrities' links, why not to add a
recent twits by Elon Musk
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577839258714476544
I am more motivated by the Markus' comment on heartbroken
Azerbaijan-Armenia fighting—another ethnic/nationalist-driven conflict
(with much of external influence and economic interests), which would
not be possible unless the free democratic West had crashed the evil
totalitarian USSR in 90-es. The "end of history" kick-started numerous
ugly stories.
Let us look at the map of the current armed conflicts causing deaths:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
I have the some questions:
* Why we shall single out only some (e.g. Ukraine(NATO)-Russian or
Azerbaijan-Armenia) wars on GiNaC page?
* Why did we not protest the military invasions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria
in the past?
* Why a fight for democratic values is always a neighbour of gas/oil
sources or pipelines?
Because I do not see satisfactory answers to above questions I am
advocating to replace the second paragraph by something completely
geographically-neutral an politically-unbiased like this:
"The GiNAC team supports peaceful international collaboration and
non-for-profit knowledge dissemination, which shall benefit the whole
humankind. Let's make science, not war!"
Otherwise, any call for a peace from one's fighting trench seems to be
insincere.
Any of us who has some more specific views and wishes may easily find
numerous other venues to express and actively support corresponding
agendas.
Best wishes,
Vladimir
--
Vladimir V. Kisil http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~kisilv/
Book: Geometry of Mobius Maps https://doi.org/10.1142/p835
Soft: Geometry of cycles http://moebinv.sourceforge.net/
Jupyter notebooks: https://github.com/vvkisil?tab=repositories
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 01:36:22 +0200, "Richard B. Kreckel" <kreckel at in.terlu.de> said:
RK> Dear Vladimir,
RK> Personally, I respect your fair call for neutrality in this
RK> horrible civilizational disaster. But I also think there is a
RK> delicate balancing act between *neutrality* and *objectivity*.
RK> On 9/27/22 16:20, Vladimir V. Kisil wrote:
>> [...] Current information flows are full of fakes, manipulations
>> and war-time propaganda. The sequence of events will be a subject
>> for heated debates for decades to come.
RK> There is certainly misleading information both on the western
RK> (uncensored, free, and competitive) media and on the Russian
RK> (censored, oppressed, and state-dictated) media. But to equate
RK> these two would clearly mean to sacrifice one's objectivity to
RK> neutrality!
>> Alternatively, we may delete the whole statement all
>> together. Calling for peace we shall do the first step ourselves
>> by not taking a side in the ongoing war.
RK> As scientists, our influence on the course of events is
RK> limited. Yet, not to speak up would mean to relinquish all
RK> influence. (Overly pathetic example: If the "Göttingen 18"
RK> hadn't spoken up in 1957, Germany would have developed nuclear
RK> weapons.) Hence, deleting the statement altogether would IMHO be
RK> faint-hearted.
RK> I re-read our statement carefully and found the first paragraph
RK> neutral – it merely sets a backdrop. The second paragraph then
RK> supports a call from Russian fellow scientists – among them at
RK> least one Fields medalist. Recall that their plea was squashed a
RK> few days later by authorities. (It has since been published
RK> abroad.) I suppose we all agree that shutting up a scientific
RK> community is unacceptable. In this conflict, suppression of
RK> speech happens objectively unilaterally.
RK> Striving for neutrality we could do two things: Replace "the
RK> Russian government" by "everybody". In addition, we should add a
RK> link to this non-Russian scientists' call for peace:
RK> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpg.de%2Fpeace-declaration-nobel-prize-laureates&data=05%7C01%7CV.Kisil%40leeds.ac.uk%7Cfc11309bba184d798de208daa72a6f85%7Cbdeaeda8c81d45ce863e5232a535b7cb%7C1%7C0%7C638006097946428219%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nPB2hjvAvK8HCS0yMUoCJBLtB50SvXAIWU6RgZ7JA5Y%3D&reserved=0>. (I
RK> am aware that it is also not "neutral".)
RK> That would be my candid proposal.
RK> All my best, -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 01:50:11 +0200, "Markus M. Knodel" <markus.m.knodel at gmx.de> said:
MMK> Dear Ginac people,
MMK> I think one should also call for an end of the aggressive war of
MMK> Azerbaijan against Armenia, where Erdogan initiated and supports
MMK> the next genocide at Armenian population one hundred years after
MMK> the first one, and Germany again is calm, as 100 years ago,
MMK> because Azerbaijan delivers gas to EU - better we should freeze
MMK> rather then support this genocide invisible to most of us. A
MMK> corresponding call would fit well to the Ginac web page.
MMK> All the best
MMK> Markus
More information about the GiNaC-devel
mailing list