On Fri, 23 May 2003 10:30:21 +0000, Sean Charles wrote
> On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 12:57 AM, jan ziak wrote:
> 
> > another enjoying text you have written below. but, you have to make a
> > decission: either you will understand each word as such, unconnected and
> > meaningless, or you will try to understand the text in the same way as 
> > other
> > people on this list do. you choose.
> So when was it made illegal to have a bit of fun no and then?
> 
> >
> > if you choose to consider the words as such, then do not write to this
> > mailing list anymore because you cannot help me, them nor you.
> >
> 
> Why should I not use this list if I cannot help you? It's not your 
> list. It was here before you found it. How do you know I cannot help 
> 'them'. That is a value judgment on your part. Unsafe at the best of 
> times. Value judgments that is! Between us and them, we may have 
> helped somebody attain enlightenment in the course of our discourse. 
> Surely that is worth it, to the enlightened recipient anyway?!
> 

you got me.

> I smell an unsound footing?!!?!?
> 
> >>> wouldn't it be more rational to have objects capable of constructing
> >>> copies
> >>> of objects?
> >>
> >> And what you you do if you wanted to copy *one of those object
> >> copying classes* then? Where do you stop creating things to copy
> >> things to copy things to copy things....
> >
> Where do you draw the line on this then?
> 
> Sean.