> Strip all those posts away from your "body of evidence" and
> what's left?
So you ignore all definitions but one and then say the
so-called "Level 3" has but one definition? And you accuss
_me_ of invalid arguments! BTW, I use the term "Definition"
lightly.
If only your definition should be used, why did you expend
energy defending Brodie's now-debunked "Stuck Replicators"
definition?
> "Bullshit! Try again!"
I like this definition of "Level 3". Does anyone else agree
with it?
-- David Leeper dleeper@gte.net Homo Deus http://home1.gte.net/dleeper/index.htm 1 + 1 != 2 http://home1.gte.net/dleeper/CMath.html