Quoting Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But look at the old "someone had to be first" argument. The issue is so > what? If person X invents a widget that no one uses then it matters not at > all. If X invents a widget and Y says cool and starts using it then Y is the > first person to recognize the importance of X's widget and should be given > credit. But if it's just X and Y using the widget then it is likely to wind > up being lost. But then Z catches on and P and Q; so the most significant > individual in the chain is the next person to catch on. Call him X+n. > > Platt wants to say that what is significant is X. I would say that what is > significant is the magnitude of 'n'. Thanks for backing up Pirsig (and me): "A tribe can change its values only person by person and someone has to be first." X is first, then Y, Z, P, Q and X+n -- each individual person by person. But without the primacy of inventor X, the rest could never follow. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
