The error message is:
Too many retries
Here are the first 20 lines of the original message you sent.
-------------------------------------------------------------
SMF-70
To: edward_maciocha@icpphil.navy.mil
From: MBBS@BBS {MBBS: INT:extropians@extropy.org}
Subject: Von Neumann's Blunder
Received: from maxwell.lucifer.com [207.167.210.100] by bbs.icdc.com with smtp
id ABAEAKGD ; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:04:10 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.lucifer.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA28920 for extropians-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:36:31 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.lucifer.com: majordom set sender to postmaster using -f
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:36:20 -0800 (PST)
From: John K Clark <johnkc@well.com>
Message-Id: <199701280536.VAA26387@well.com>
To: extropians@lucifer.com
Subject: Von Neumann's Blunder
Sender: postmaster@extropy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 27 Jan 1997 Omega <omega@pacific.net> Wrote:
>I'm not sure we want to start ascribing the type of infallibility to
>von Neumann that, ahem, certain other people ascribe to say someone
>like Paul.
Von Neumann had little physical intuition, and even in pure mathematics was
not as creative as Godel or Turing, but I don't know anyone in the entire
history of Science who had a quicker mind of made fewer mathematical mistakes.
Von Neumann never won a Nobel Prize, but more than one Nobel Prize winner
with a boiling water IQ ( Hans Bethe, Eugene Wigner, even Richard Feynman)
has publicly stated that in Von Neumann's presence they felt like morons.
This despite the fact that Von Neumann always took great pains to be kind and
exceedingly polite. The man was so smart it was terrifying, Feynman called
him a "monster mind".
>Victor J Stenger contradicts both Bell and Mermim (and presumably
>Hermann too) about the lack of mathematical error in von Neumann's
>work
Bell said it was silly and irrelevant, he did not say it had a mathematical
error.
>>John:
>>I know of no law of logic the demands that every event have a
>>cause.
>Omega:
>Technically I would agree, BUT such a statement amounts to a
>sweeping and profound metaphysical statement.
Thank you, I rather liked it too.
>Cramer's transactional interpretation does not necessarily imply
>non- locality so much as the fact that local causal principles
>propagate (on the microcausal level) symmetrically bidirectionally
-------------------------------------------------------------
* Automated Notice Sent by MajorTCP/IP on bbs.icdc.com*