Oh, I just can't help baiting Subararu sometimes. He can take it and dish it out, though; so, clueless, you don't need to ride to his aid, watching attentively from the bushes. Clueless, clueless, how-oh-how do you maintain your delusion of radical egalitarianism? Everyone hears equally, or thinks equally, etc., or is that just an idea you like to maintain, that you're the nice kind-of-guy that thinks so, even though its not true, even though, if you bothered to say what you mean, you would have to admit its not true? Everyone is equal in their potential to hear, not in how they actually exercise that potential. Your assumption of aristocracy - the politically correct foil for your references looking to rile in your aid others so offended - is, in that context, misplaced. But I guess you were too eager to jump out of those bushes to think about that one, eh?
I thought about "sophisticated", but thought that defining it would be sufficient to assuage those knee-jerk reactions to the word. Guess not. When I responded to Muralman and his tone and what I thought it represented, I was very clear on what basis I made those conclusions. This in turn allowed him the opportunity to respond to my observations. In other words, I respected him enough to offer him a response that could be responded to, if he so chose (which he did not). By making tangential references about me personally, you don't allow me to properly respond. But, then again, perhaps that was your intent. My observation of your postings, which I've always enjoyed even though we may not agree, is incongruent with the AUTHENTICITY of your last chosen response.
I remain, amused...and still mildly hopeful.
PS: Clueless, what do you think of the notion that wire becomes more important in a system as the system increases in "sophistication"? Don't react to the word, even though defined; answer the content.
I thought about "sophisticated", but thought that defining it would be sufficient to assuage those knee-jerk reactions to the word. Guess not. When I responded to Muralman and his tone and what I thought it represented, I was very clear on what basis I made those conclusions. This in turn allowed him the opportunity to respond to my observations. In other words, I respected him enough to offer him a response that could be responded to, if he so chose (which he did not). By making tangential references about me personally, you don't allow me to properly respond. But, then again, perhaps that was your intent. My observation of your postings, which I've always enjoyed even though we may not agree, is incongruent with the AUTHENTICITY of your last chosen response.
I remain, amused...and still mildly hopeful.
PS: Clueless, what do you think of the notion that wire becomes more important in a system as the system increases in "sophistication"? Don't react to the word, even though defined; answer the content.