Dan wrote: > I origionally just hit reply to while multitaking and the returned it just > to John. I'm sorry that it didn't go to the list, but I'm using my > portable which does not have my main sorter. BTW, the below is not > intended as a flame, but an accurate statement of what the posts indicate > to me. I have never ever heard anyone who I know had sucessfully adressed > very complex issues say or write what John writes about complex issues. It > is possible that I have read such a disbelief in Murphy's laws in the last > 15 or so years on line, but I don't recall. > > >>You are very very quite about yourself, but your posts indicate someone who >>has never had to properly simplify a complex situation in order to succeed. >>I don't think I've corresponded with anyone who writes as though they >>believe that Murphy's laws never apply to complex systems, and that humans >>can do nothing but make things worse. Your posts make the antagoist of >>Earth a look protechnical. :-) > > It's funny that some of his posts have brin-l as the main return and some > don't. Finally, I'm sorry if folks, like John, are offended that I spare > time writing to this list in between real work.
I'm offended that you don't proof your posts! Quite for quiet (I think), antigoist for antagonist (I think) and spare for spend (I think). I guess I should just be happy that you didn't truncate half a paragraph!! I kid you, I'm not offended in the least. And I know what you meant. 8^) Doug _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
