I assumed that you were giving your support to the list owner when you said
that it would seem that of the two of us, I was looking the most rediculous
(or agreeing with the lister who proposed this idea); and were therefore not
in favor of "self-determinism"*. I was not deliberately misinterpreting
your statement about "server" problems for an "object lesson"--I interpreted
it myself in the spirit of the thread (as things often get interpreted to
somehow relate to the situational/environmental context). It was only after
you questioned me that I wondered how something can so obviously relate and
be so obviously non-related. It was an object lessen to myself that
synchronous things happen "by accident"...call it an "omen", if you will.
*did you say "self-determinism" or "self-deterministic"? I erased the
message by mistake. As an aside, I might lean in the direction of
self-determinism but am not self-deterministic (the first term I take to
mean that one can interpret situations in a way that is descriptive of who
they are...the second to mean that one should be willful--which I interpret
ignorant, oppositional, and violent).
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Bradley's Bromide:
If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into
a committee -- that will do them in.