On Jul 27, 2010, at 1:43 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:37 PM, david buchanan wrote: > >> >> Marsha asked how patterns and objects differ and then responded to the >> explanation: >> >> I asked what YOU thought the difference was between patterns and objects. >> This first paragraph ...does not address the question. Analogues? How does >> this address the question I asked? How does this address a comparison >> between patterns and objects? In this paragraph who is "he says", and how >> does it address the difference between patterns and objects. Patterns or >> objects? I do not notice any reference to patterns or objects. Not reference >> to patterns or objects here either. Patterns? Objects? Intellectual >> competence? And how does this beautiful pronouncement address the difference >> between patterns and objects? And the difference between independent objects >> and static patterns of value is addressed here how? This doesn't address the >> difference between objects and patterns. So the question (the difference >> between objects and patterns) is a question you haven't had much time to >> investigate? >> >> >> dmb concluded his explanation: >> And that's how patterns are different from things. See? >> >> >> >> Marsha replied: >> Got it. >> >> >> dmb says: >> >> The whole post was about the difference between patterns and things. "He" is >> Robert Pirsig, of course. >> >> All of your responses are questions that indicate zero comprehension of the >> explanation so I take your final comment as sarcasm. What is it you don't >> get? Are you even trying to understand? You did ask the question as if you >> really wanted to know, or so it seemed to me. But now it seems like you're >> just jerking me around. Again. >> >> I don't know what kind of game you think you're playing but your thoughtless >> response only makes you look like an incorrigible child. If you don't really >> want an answer, then why even ask? Are you just looking for the opportunity >> to show us all what 0% reading comprehension looks like, or what? > > > Marsha: > I thought I had asked a direct question, but I know how difficult > that can be because there are metaphysical subtleties that are > difficult to express in words. I'll accept your answer to be > 'not this, not that'. That is an point-of-view I can even applaud.
Marsha: But maybe I've been too generous. Dave, maybe you should find out what the word 'object' as a 'thing-in-itself', means. And you might want to investigate what the meaning of 'pattern' within the MoQ. And then you might be able to meaningfully suggest a difference between the two. ___ 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
