Cheap Shots, was:Re: AI done here despite cheap shots

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Thu Jun 08 2000 - 09:53:52 MDT

Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 10:01 PM 14/03/00 -0600, Eli wrote:
> >Yes, I'm annoyed.
> You have no reason to be. I must stress that what I wrote was not--and was
> not meant to be read as--any kind of denigration of Eli or his efforts, but
> was a response to an off-hand comment by someone else. (Perhaps my jokey
> subject head lent itself to misreading; it was meant lightheartedly, after
> the manner of, you know, Buffy and the gang). I'm prepared to take
> Eliezer's case far more seriously than, say, any of us (I assume) take the
> Lorrey Drive, because its goal does not fly in the face of what we know to
> be true and its advocate is one exceptionally smart puppy.

I just found this message, so bygones that its a couple months old...

A couple clarifying questions:
a) How many times in your life has 'what we know to be true' been tossed out the

b) Considering that Prof. John Cramer of the U of W has stated that such a
device would work if the working mass were circulating at relativistic
velocities (an opinion that Sasha Chislenko also held), doesn't this put some
weight to the possibility that what you 'know to be true' seems to be on its way
out the window?

Mike Lorrey

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:52 MDT