(snip)
>First off, that was sarcasm. Secondly, I did not expect anger. I did not
>reply with anger, in fact I replied with great sadness.
Why sadness? You took a post with an intention to locate a printing press
and singled out a visual idea and made it into a scientific debate. Then
you began attacking values and accusing intent without fully comprehending
the concept. Your blatant comments were based on an area of interest that
you consider yourself to be adept at, but you missed all else. Rather than
ask questions, your made assumptions and claimed them as facts.
>From your perspective, your reaction might have been "sadness," but it came
across differently.
> I take it very
>personally when scientists are made to look foolish.
Yes, I can see. I don't believe that anyone was intentionally trying to make
science or you look foolish.
Natasha Vita More [fka Nancie Clark]
http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon
Extropic Art Manifesto!: http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon/extropic.htm
* * * * * * * * * *