To the chaos mathematician Stan, :) It is regretful that you cannot understand it. There is nothing I can do, it's that simple. By attacking (too strong a word?) my email like a academic or a critic, you thoroughly distort its original intent. How often did we see that in books in highschool and thought much of it was pure c**p? You have turned it into something that it was not.
> I am just totally baffled as to what (a) and the tautological (b) have to do > with the supposed conclusion in (c). So my email is an incorrect equation? a+b=c? I don't recall writing it with an equation in mind.....hmmm. I don't remember having to write emails with care like I do with my Masters thesis. Your whole response to this is laughable. I find your comments, methods and approach 'bizarre'. Your logic I won't even comment on. Did you add anything constructive or educational to my email? You of course have a right to an opinion. Although why you felt a compulsion to reply in the first place, I of course, cannot understand. Thank you however, I found it very uninformative. With lots of love, Brad Dobo (Keeper of the flame) Btw, love how you didn't quote my whole email, a typical tactic in academic arguments. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Halpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 12:18 AM Subject: Re: Digital robustness > > > > From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:02:42 -0400 > > Subject: Re: Digital robustness > > > > ... Electronic consumer goods ... are very suseptable to a variety of things. > > Moisture damage, breaking when dropped, and malfunctioning. One can then > > assume that a consumer digital camera or DSLR would also be that way, > > because it's a consumer electronic good. > > > Sorry guys. I just cannot resist commenting on this really bizarre form of > logic. > > a. > > Electronic consumer goods ... are very susceptible to a variety of things. > > Moisture damage, breaking when dropped, and malfunctioning. > > b. > > "[a consumer digital camera or DSLR is a . . .] consumer electronic good." > > c. therefore (?) > >One can then assume that a consumer digital camera or DSLR would also be that > > way [very susceptible to a variety of things]" > > Huh? I am not sure what the sweeping generality in (a) is referring to, but > does the moisture susceptibility of my desktop computer have anything to do > with the likelihood that someone would design a digital camera that was > liable to die when it started raining? As to malfunctioning, everything > malfunctions t some degree. The only issue is the granularity of the quality > control. Chip manufacturers reject a huge portion of the chips manufactured. > But the point is that they do test and they do reject and the functioning > ones make it into products, and the good ones stay good. > > > Can we go back to foul language? Or political discussions? <g> > > Stan >
