> 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.
SA: No wonder some people find the kind of
description of dq, that I said and you quoted above so
threatening and misgiving. It seems to be the pivot
point of where people can't understand each other here
on this forum. I'll think about this. Maybe I'll
find out why I took the undefined=dynamic and
defined=static approach in the first place. I'll keep
reading ahead in the posts, and then look into Lila as
to what may have encouraged my approach.
By the way, this really doesn't have anything
to do with this discussion, so, I don't want to throw
this off track, but I do find Occam overrated and
thrown around by too many people to justify
philosophies that can be very, very far apart in
meaning. Just a side note.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
