Re: ampersand (from tuning)

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > > You could always expand your definition of humanity to cover
the
> > thoughts and activities of humans.
> >
> > When the thoughts and activities of humans become indescernible
> from
> > machines I reserve the right to define the term as I see it.
>
> does that imply, by extension, that you would confer less 'human
> rights' to those whose activities you deem as 'machine-like'?
perhaps
> you would treat them more like machines than like humans? reply to
> metatuning . . .

Neither infer nor extend what I am saying. My original remark was a
quite simply one: that I found it charming that in tracing back the
naming of something it could wind up being nothing more than - and
nothing less than - an affectionate accolade for a cat. And that it
was some abstruse technical term.

After that, my basic principles on values and perceptions became the
central issue, which I don't feel like I particularly have to get
into at this juncture. I've already explained to you, offline, some
issues that were bothering me about the 'tone' of the tuning list,
and this becomes somewhat related to that.

Try not to read to much into it folks, I just liked the cat story as
opposed to yet another treatise on this, that, or the other (which is
not only valid but appropriate on the tuning list...).

Regards,
Jon