You already are and do, to the extent that you are and do. Is my
writing really that obscure?
It looks like you're veering towards CEV . . . . which I think is a *huge*
error. CEV says nothing about chocolate or strawberry and little about
great food or mediocre sex.
The pragmatic point is that there are no absolute answers, but you
absolutely can improve the process (from any particular subjective
point of view.)
Wrong. There *are* some absolute answers. There are some obvious universal
"Thou shalt not"s that are necessary unless you're rabidly anti-community
(which is not conducive to anyone's survival -- and if you want to argue
that community survival isn't absolute, then I'll just cheerfully ignore
you).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jef Allbright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:34 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content
On 10/2/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Effective deciding of these "should" questions has two major elements:
> (1) understanding of the "evaluation-function" of the assessors with
> respect to these specified "ends", and (2) understanding of principles
> (of nature) supporting increasingly coherent expression of that
> evolving "evaluation function".
So how do I get to be an assessor and decide?
You already are and do, to the extent that you are and do. Is my
writing really that obscure?
The pragmatic point is that there are no absolute answers, but you
absolutely can improve the process (from any particular subjective
point of view.)
- Jef
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=49012992-637825
