> >You've misinterpreted my meaning. I was responding to a poster who
> >suggested that the intent underlying the development of a
> >product was relevant to the appropriateness of its use. That I disagree
> >with this position does not mean, as you have assumed, that
> >I automatically adopt the other extreme -- that because there is an
> >inappropriate use for a product, it cannot be used at all. Your
> >attempt at a false dichotomy is rather transparent.
>
> I would HOPE it was transparent... it was meant as a tongue in cheek
> response. I didn't honestly think you believed in the extreme logical end
> to the concept.
>
> Sorry, I thought it would be understood as a goof when I asked for your
> car. :-)
>
> -chris
>
> <http://www.mythtech.net>
>
You never know on this list, as there tends to be an abundance of reductio ad absurdum posts that are not at all tongue in cheek!
You wouldn't want my car anyway, it's a lease.
-W
Received on Wed Apr 03 2002 - 02:20:52 BST