I apologize for the post,
I didn't felt insulted, from this pov there's no need to apologize.
Your point could have been made better I feel without things like the "toilet paper" comment.
That's how a reduction to absurd argument is supposed to work, i.e. get to some really grotesque conclusion when applying a certain logic that you're trying to prove as false. See the silicon example that I just gave to Bruce.
If you are being tongue in cheek, warning, warning, I have found (being a tongue in cheek person) it does not come across well in writing and is not usually that effective on the Internet.
I sign "Caveman". That should be enough, but here it is, once again:
BEWARE FOLKS, I *ALWAYS* WRITE TONGUE IN CHEEK.
That's how I work. Look here:
http://pug.komkon.org/99nov/valentin.htm
Hello to Roger wherever he is now.
The rest of the discussion is beyond the scope of the list and will be taken on private mail.
cheers, caveman
