At 09:10 AM 4/30/2008, you wrote: > > Joe (It is Joe, also, correct?): > > > I have difficulty with the word ³abstract² used > > for > > > DQ! > > > > SA previously: Yes, I don't agree with this detail >of what Ron > > said either for if we're talking about abstract > > thoughts/intellect, well, that's an intellectual > > pattern. When it comes to labeling dynamic quality > > in any way that is taboo. > >Ron: >This is the whole argument in a nutshell right here >"labeling dynamic quality in any way that is taboo." >Is a fallacy. > >There I said it! And I stand by it. > >Dynamic Quality is meant to operate >As an abstract descriptor. We can describe a dynamic >Experience but we can not define Quality absolutely >As a noun because it holds dual meaning, and of >Course the real Quality is experience itself. > >I think if we can agree on this point we can start >Discussing things in an MoQ. Context! > >This eliminates the need for Bo's SOL. > >Occam never had a closer shave. > >
Hi Ron, I cannot even imagine Quality or DQ as a noun. Not this. Not that. Marsha Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
