Amorphous means to be without "definite" form.
On Mar 21, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Mary to dmb: > > The reason for my question refers back to a series of posts last weekin which > Marsha's statement that SPOVs are ever-changing received strenuous objection > from yourself, Andre, and perhaps others. > > Andre: > Correct. > > Mary: > In an attempt to understand why Marsha's statement should be attacked I asked > the obvious question, which is, that if you don't believe SPOVs are > ever-changing, then that must mean you think they are unchanging. > > Andre: > I hope dmb and myself and others have clarified this for you Mary. They are > 'stable' and not fixed or immutable. > > Mary: > Now you say, much to my relief, that you do not believe that either, so I > really have to wonder what all the fuss was about with Marsha? > > As I see it, there is no disagreement here and never was. Marsha was never > conflating DQ with SQ and never saying SPOVs were anything but temporary. > So, again I ask, what's all the fuss? > > Andre: > The 'fuss' lies here Mary: > > Marsha (Dec 18, 2010 to Tim): 'DQ is sq, sq is DQ. Most of us know this...' > and further in the post she repeats it: 'Right. DQ is sq, sq is DQ. > > This is what I and others attacked. And earlier in the year: > > Marsha: (July 23(?), 2010):'... a pattern is not limited to finite > definition. Patterns can be amorphous and still stable'. To which dmb > responded:'Amorphous means 'shapeless' or 'without form'. So you are saying, > in effect, that patterns are shapeless and without form. This is simply a > contradiction of the definitions of the terms. Again, that's why they're > called STATIC patterns'. > > To my knowledge, Marsha has never retracted this conviction nor detracted > anything from it. > > It is in this context you must see the 'fuss' being made. Marsha HAS > conflated DQ and sq. So this is not 'some kind of straw-man set up with the > intent to discredit Marsha'. Marsha's 'ever-changing' statement denotes > DQ=sq/sq=DQ. > > It has been Marsha herself saying it 'loud enough and long enough' and yea I > therefore 'actually believe that's what she thinks'. > > Your own statement that you do not think this is correct (i.e. conflating DQ > and sq) should put you on your back heels as well because this particular > statement contravenes and contradicts the most basic element of the MOQ. It > makes an undifferentiated mess of things. Are you not concerned about this? > > > 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 ___ 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
