MB>> Why bother using a square to prevent mistakes while making a
 MB>> dresser, or to prevent a mishapen drawer? Why use a plumb-bob?
 MB>> Why use a level? Why measure _anything_?
 MR>> To get "close enough".
 MB>> if perfection is a fiction.  Why all the complex mathematics to
 MB>> program a space-craft on its way to the moon?
 MR>> To get "close enough".
 MB>> Wouldn't chance offer better chances then, if it were not for
 MB>> perfection?
 MR>> If it were not for _what_?
 MB>  It's interesting you believe that we can get "close enough" without
 MB>  the ideal of perfecting being something to which we use to gauge
 MB>  "close enough" in the first place!  It is astounding actually; that
 MB>  any person would assume we can grasp perfection - but we must
 MB>  know of its existence; for all our getting "close enough" to it.
Who said I was referring to getting "close enough" to "perfection"?
Besides you, that is.
What I want is a coherent definition of the word "perfect".
Until I hear such a definition, I try to keep that particular pseudo-concept 
out of my conversations.  Sometimes years of Perfectionist brainwashing makes 
me slip though.
In the (local) cases of "square" and "word spelling" I think someone could 
come up with a reasonable definition of "perfect", however trivial (as in the 
example of word spelling) or unattainable (as in, according to some physical 
Universe models, the case of the square).  I'd rather find and use better 
words than that globally-sloppy "perfect" though.
Mr. Rigor
--- GoldED 2.50+
---------------