On 12-27-97 David Martorana wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello David, 
  
 DM> DM>> Complete systems, however bent in accuracy or value, require 
 DM> DM> that all 
 DM> DM>> the players be labeled. Such thinking has to round off any 
 DM> DM> "grays" so 
 DM> DM>> that identifications of the WHOs with, and WHOs against, can be 
 DM> DM>> painted clear.  It is a thinking (often seen on this echo) that 
 DM> DM>> is absolutely 
    
 DM>  JB> How can you "lump" -all- "such thinking" into "rounding off" any 
 DM>  JB> grays....? 
    
 DM>   When "YOU" lump individuals into "TERMS"  you essentially lop off 
 DM> any inconvenient edges "WE" may have. That allows you to define 
 
  Don't you see what you just did, you, David, just lumped me 
into that set of "individuals who lump individuals into "TERMS?"" 
  Don't you think since there are greys which presumbaly extends 
to those "individuals that lump other individuals into "TERMS"" 
such as myself, you can't lump me automatically into the set of 
"individuals who lump individuals into "TERMS?""  Aren't I 
entitled to some grayness and if so, how can you "lump me 
into that set of individuals who lump individuals into "TERMS?"" 
  After all, the set of "individuals who lump individuals 
into "TERMS"" is gray is it not?  How can you be so 
clear in your announcments with such grayness or are 
stepping out of the gray into black and white? 
  
 DM> your prey (us po' foks) to fit conveniently into your 
 DM> contriv-en-ish 
 DM> logic. That Frank and I won't let you get away with it, seems 
 DM> ever 
 DM> a mystery to you. My "pointing out your (and some others) 
 DM> "rounding off" was just a bit of counter contrivancy. 
    
  Actually, not, I am pointing out the inconsitency in the 
position.  It is not a mystery to me as to -why- you do and 
think what you do and think because you get some joy or 
benefit out of it, it is simple as that.  
  
 DM> DM>> But do pour out your heart of reasoning as I _MAY_  be wrong  
 DM> DM>> and John might just be on the verge of admitting that pure logic 
 DM> DM>> is not the virgin he thinks it is! 
    
 DM> JB> I introduced the topic of "Fuzzy Logic", grays, earlier about a 
 DM> JB> year or perhaps longer ago to indicate pure binary logic leaves 
 DM> JB> a lot to be desired particularly in our existence, however, even 
 DM> JB> "Fuzzy Logic", grays, has -some- form or rules to follow. To use
 DM> JB> "logic" even "fuzzy logic" without rules or form misses the 
 DM> JB> -need- for form or structure. 
    
 DM>  Yes I remember your introducing "fuzzy logic" grays. My general 
 DM>  dispute with you is that you MOST always project North of the 
 DM>  "grays" you claim to know and love .....with more emphasis on 
 DM>  rigidity of form than insight into substance. YES!  You know 
 DM>  there are grays but you treat the 
    
 DM>               "reality-of-truth-to-be-mired-in-grays" 
  
 DM>      as an orphan to be only occasionally and reluctantly 
 DM>      acknowledged                    .......Goodness!!!! 
    
  Ye, the champion of grayness, how can you make such "clear" 
statements about my "projects [toward] North" when they are 
so grey? 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------