"John Clark" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I've asked this question twice before of Harvey Newstrom and received
> insults and invocations of the all powerful "s" word but no answer,
> the third time is the charm.
I'm sorry that you feel insulted. That certainly was not my intent.
However, I apologize for any discomfort or inconvenience.
> Question: I've been making and destroying a billion Harvey Newstroms
> every second since you were a one celled zygote, so you tell me, who
> is the original Harvey Newstrom?
> > What part of my answer did you not understand?
> I think it was the part where you tell me who is the original Harvey
Here are my pervious answers.
I wrote on Tuesday, May 16, 2000 4:08 PM,
> Where did you get the plan
> for building a Harvey Newstrom? From the original. Every copy of Harvey
> Newstrom was generated from a pre-existing copy, except for one. There
> once an original that was produced the old-fashioned way.
I wrote on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 5:12 PM,
> The thing that you copy *from* is the original. The thing you copy *to*
> not the original.
I wrote on Thursday, May 18, 2000 9:52 AM:
> What part of my answer did you not understand? If you made the copies,
> didn't you know which was the copy source and which as the copy
> How can you copy something if you can't tell which is which? What keeps
> from copying the blank page into the original data? Why do you keep
> the same question again without referencing any of the preceding answers?
Let me try to answer once again.
Go backwards in time until you reach a time when there is only one Harvey
Newstrom. This is the original.
Or, look at the data flowing in the Harvey Newstrom copy machine. The
direction of the data flow indicates the original. Data flows from the
original to the copy.
Or, look at the peripheral devices on the Harvey Newstrom copy machine. The
person under the scanner/reader is the original. The person under the nano
assembler is the copy.
Or, look at the persons in a destructive copy machine. The body that is
being disassembled atom by atom is the original. The body that is being
assembled atom by atom is the copy.
Or, look at the self-check mechanism of a copy process. It compares the
copy to the original to see if the copy was completed successfully. The
body that is considered to be definitively correct is the original. The
body that is compared and corrected if it deviates is the copy.
Here are some questions for you, to help me understand why you aren't
perceiving my answer as an answer:
Do you seriously not understand who I consider to be the original, or do you
merely disagree with me? Do you not understand what I am saying, or do you
merely not understand why I say it? Do you disagree with all dictionaries
and usage of the term "original", or do you merely disagree with some
specialized way that I am using the term? Do you disagree that there is
only one Harvey Newstrom right now and that he is the original by default,
or do you merely disagree that there are originals in your theoretical
I seriously don't know how to explain the concept of "the original Harvey
Newstrom" to you without further information from you. You do not seem to
disagree with my answer, but refuse to acknowledge that I have answered.
You do not seem to disagree with my definition of the "original", but refuse
to acknowledge that an original ever existed.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> IBM Certified Senior Security Consultant, Legal Hacker, Engineer, Research Scientist, Author.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:23 MDT