Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA16169 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:44:02 GMT Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:38:31 -0500 Subject: circular logic Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Wade Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20011127194615.A548@ii01.org> Message-Id: <B88E8FD8-E376-11D5-96F1-003065A0F24C@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.475) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> you still insist that the wheel is
> not imitated, merely used.
I don't imitate a wheel when I ride my bicycle.
And if I imitate a wheel, rather than use one, I'm not sure how
I'd be riding.
But, yes, granted, if I want to make one from scratch, I _might_
need to use something circular.
But, hey, why try so hard?, here's a spoked and trued wheel
right here- (sitting at the bike shop, or available through a
catalog.) I'll think I'll use that instead of imitating it to
produce some unknown alternative as it seems to work for all
those other bicycles out there.
If all you mean by imitation is that wheels all look alike,
well, they don't. They are all circular though (the ones that
work), and if all you mean by imitation is that all wheels are
circular, well, of course they are. They're wheels. And if all
you mean by imitation is that designers working on a wheel
prototype have to draw a circle every time, well, I think the
circle is a little more basic to design then that.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 27 2001 - 20:57:33 GMT