David Harding said to Marsha:
That's what this discussion board does. Each person has their own ideas and we
can determine which ones are good and which are not. Your idea of static
patterns as 'ever-changing' goes against the fundamentally static nature of
static patterns and so is a low quality explanation.
Marsha replied:
Though I asked, you never did explain what 'fundamentally static nature of
static patterns' means. Static patterns, as they pragmatically tend to
persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern, makes it quite
possible to evaluate them. But because they are also constantly changing, it
makes it more important to consider the value of the circumstances (context).
dmb says:
The contradiction is so obvious that it doesn't need to be explained.
"Constantly changing" is exactly what "static" does NOT mean, so that the claim
(static patterns are ever-changing) is just nonsense. It simply defies the
meaning of the terms, like saying that stable forms are always in flux. This is
such a low quality explanation that I think it doesn't even count as an
explanation. It's just an unintelligible and incoherent string of words.
Is there anyone who does not see the contradictory nature of this claim?
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
