On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:37 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: I got the sinking Ron Kulp feeling that we are on > different planets, >
> John: > > Ok. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're real flexible in your thinking. > > I admit I skim sometimes because it does seem to me that you just > > keep repeating the same incomprehensible formulations. > > Bo: > You - the weak interpreters - insist that it must be > "comprehensible", while the strong (SOL) interpreters don't care if it > understood from SOM - it CAN'T be - but simply apply it and the strong > (SOL) MOQ's delivers infallible results while the weak MOQ is good for > nothing. > > Bodvar. > > So you think my interpretation is "good for nothing"?. Well I think yours does nothing good. So we're even. Personally, I think "good for nothing" is a great deal. A steal, in fact! Perhaps my christian underpinnings showing through, sort of an "unearned grace" kinda deal. Good formulation, Bo. I'll keep it. good for nothing goof, John 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/md/archives.html
