[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Thu Jun 20 08:46:40 UTC 2002


On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> Take any one item I call fact and sock it to me, please.
> Let's start with 2+2=4 which Jeme cannot even agree on.

I agree with that statement completely.

I also agree with the statement 2+2=12.

> He cannot agree on the Websters definitions either.

Which was that?  I believe I showed that I was using the Webster's
definitions of "mine", "yours", and "invade" (though the last I used after
you sent this mail, so it surely doesn't apply).

When did I disagree with any definition in Webster's?

> This is where the whole fabric falls apart.
> His computer won't care about wiggle room because it is LOGICAL.
> So I use it as an analogy to prove my position.

My computer is very good at recognizing special cases and adapting to
them.

We don't call it "wiggle room", we call it a "switch/case" or a
"conditional".

> He is silent on protocols and how they must be agreed upon and must be
> in one common languge to get any work done.

I'm not silent on that subject at all.  I believe that parties who choose
to participate within the same structure must agree upon the protocols.  I
do not, however, believe that the protocols must be in one common
language.  The Rosetta Stone is an ancient example of a protocol agreement
in the native languages of all the parties involved.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list