Re: object algebra

I apologize for my lack of humor. I'm not normally this dour. I was on a spree of Neo-refutations and got caught up in my own thoughts.

Great one, Mikito, if only in hindsight.

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:T-idnerHXL0Xr6DdRVn-hQ_at_golden.net...
> "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:992%b.17635$ZB6.7856_at_newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message
> > news:QZR_b.37$kg3.206_at_news.oracle.com...
> > > "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bHP_b.17521$%p4.2788_at_newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > If Mary has no eyes, then the definition of a person as having eyes
is
> > > > flawed.
> > >
> > > The c.d.t actively promotes and is committed to ensure a work
> environment
> > > that is free from any discriminatory influence be it actual or
> perceived.
> > As
> > > such, it is the c.d.t expectation that our posters make a concentrated
> > > effort to ensure that any article that are provided to c.d.t. do not
> > possess
> > > or portray an image that may be construed as offensive or defamatory
in
> > > nature.
> > >
> > > One such recent example included the posts where the words "no eye"
> > appeared
> > > to identify the female sources. Based on the cultural diversity and
> > > sensitivity of c.d.t., this is not an acceptable identification label.
> > >
> > > We would request that each poster review, identify and remove/change
any
> > > identification or labeling of terms or schema thereof that could be
> > > interpreted as discriminatory or offensive in nature before such
article
> > is
> > > posted or otherwise provided to any c.d.t. thread.
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance.
> >
> > Is this a joke? Seriously - you're kidding, right?
> >
> > If I labeled, stereotyped, portrayed offensive images, etc., kindly
point
> > them out. The quoted text above is evidence of none of those, as far as
I
> > can tell. The inference is yours, and based on no implication of mine.

>