Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> But, thought we where dropping this. lol
> 
> Since at this point you seem to be *intentionally* missing the point, sure.
> 
Intentionally? I think I will refrain from making the same accusation... 
Seriously though, this reminds me of a discussion I had one day with a 
guy that was going to college for Electronic Engineering, at the same 
time I was taking Computer Information Systems, on approaches to AI and 
what we thought would actually work. We spent like 3 hours dancing 
around each others definitions and statements, without once realizing 
that there was no real core difference in our position. It took stepping 
back on my part and presenting a redefinition of the problem.

In our case.. I am not sure I could come up with a redefinition that 
wouldn't dig the hole deeper. The ball would therefor seem to be in your 
court, if you wanted to continue, but, unfortunately, the last few 
attempts you made to describe what you thought "my" position was 
where... Lets just say you where reading things between the lines that 
didn't even involve the same book, never mind printing date. I think we 
are perhaps both badly misunderstanding each other.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message