BN>And at that point there's no common frame of relative reference,
BN>so if we're talking about a supposedly common basic subject we then
BN>end up talking at cross-purposes, which can't possibly work. ;)
        Why not? We're doing fine now!
        This whole idea that we *must* a common frame of reference
  misses the point of what I was posting.  If we need one, we can whip
  one up.  It doesn't have to be there all the time, and it can be
  temporary.  Secondly there is *nothing* in your frame of reference
  that I have to consider binding.
BN>Nope, what I said was that some people take their _own_ version of
BN>Trek as the One True Trek over everyone else's -- somewhat large
BN>difference there. };)
        Not quite.  If some one, like the hypothetical Poster Pinky says
 that his Trek is the One True Trek, then there's aboslutely *nothing*
 he can do to make this so, so let him say as often as he wants.  You
 keep missing this point.  Listen carefully.
        If *someone* like the imaginary, hypothetical example of Poster
 Pinky says "This is the one true Trek."  Then that doesn't matter.
 There is nothing he can do to back this up.  Period.  We are free to
 ignore him.  I recommend this course.
        To say that there *must* be a frame of reference says that
 Poster Pinky = Wrong and that Bill Nichols = Right.  This is more or
 less exactly what Poster Pinky just screamed about himself.  Your one
 true Trek isn't any better than his because there is no one true trek.
        Now you say that this isn't what you're saying.  Technically
 true, but when you say that Poster Pinky is *wrong* then that implies
 that there must be a *right* out there somewhere.  Then you use 
 as a way to define it.
        I say that we can easily define a common frame of reference
 between us if we need one but it would be temporary and non-binding.
Jay P. Hailey 
Chief Editor
THE UNIVERSE: TREK
 * OLX 2.1 TD * "Is this Liberace's mom?" - Joel
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------