Re: Objects and Relations

On Feb 15, 9:34 pm, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net> wrote:

> Oh, I am not obsessed by it, but why did you miss something so
> obvious? If you did it on purpose, what purpose was there besides you
> simply trying to score points?
The purpose was simply to bring JOG's attention onto a specific point where he assumed that XYZ could represent some kind of universal locator. Demonstrating that such approach was dangerous and could lead to absurd reasoning was the aim of my remarks. If I would have changed JOG's premise it would not have been honest on my part...

If you knew me better, you'd realize *scoring points* does not bring me any satisfaction but absurd reasoning deeply irritates me.

> >[Snipped]
> >> We can discern them by considering the different radius.
> >And that supposes changing the initial statement of XYZ being the key.
> >> (x,y,z) does not suffice. Add radius.
> >Agreed. But that changes the initial premice of discussion.
>
> No, it was about location. So you say that (x,y,z) does not
> suffice, that r needs to be added, and continue the discussion. Or,
> you can just try to derail the discussion.
>
> Unfortunately, every so often, you get into a disruptive mode.
Been called worse ;) Received on Fri Feb 16 2007 - 09:41:20 CET