Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Chip~ > > On 6/12/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'd like like to note for other readers and the p6i archives that >> Piers has failed to grasp the problem, so the solution seems pointless >> to him. I'm sorry that's the case, but I've already explained enough. > > This response worries me firstly because of its rudeness and second > because of the problem itself. As I see it there are four > possibilities a: > > 1) Chip is right, Piers is wrong. This is a complex problem and > refusing to explain it means that others will doubtless also > misunderstand it, which you have a chance to preempt here. > > 2) Chip is wrong, Piers is right. This is a complex problem and > refusing discussion on it would be a costly mistake. > > 3) Chip is right, Piers is right. The two of you have are working from > a different base set of definitions/axioms or misunderstood each other > in some other way. > > 4) Chip is wrong, Piers is wrong. Shutting down open conversation so > forcefully and caustically will prevent discussion in the future and > this problem will continue to haunt parrot as no viable solution has > been seen. > > Regardless of which of these possibilities is true. I see a need for > more discussion of this issue. Preferably a discussion that does not > degrade into backhanded insults. I have my own ideas about this > problem, but I will save that for another response.
Don't worry Matt, we're still talking. It takes more than sarcasm to stop me.
