[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)
J Henshaw
jeff at jhenshaw.com
Wed Jun 19 12:37:45 UTC 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miller, Jeremy" <JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us>
To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 5:42 PM
Subject: RE: [PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)
> > Sounds like a good time to apply the more communicative "ours".
>
> Yes, a great time for it. Would probably have been much more clear. I
> agree that the original statement was a little murky, but parsing the
words
> did . (Aside: You've added a fourth term that would correctly apply.
Good
> play.)
>
> OTOH, the availability of a term that might convey meaning more
efficiently
> does not render the less efficient method meaningless. Which I believe is
> what you were claiming.
>
> > Just becuase it's true doesn't make it so, eh?
>
> Erm... I'd say that phrase is definitely murky. Is it yours or his?
It is his mantra;
"Just because it's true doesn't make it true"
There is no communicating with one who does not recognize truth.
This is why we cannot; we use two diffeent protocols.
My protocol is based on reality, his is virtual.
End of story.
"Stop the War: Eat an Electron for Dinner."
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list