>In message <199608281542.IAA12605X0@primenet.com>, Natasha V. More writes:
>
>> I stated months ago that I thought UIF was, perhaps, sloopy
>> in its authorship. It's original purpose, so to speak, was mutated. Thus,
>> my intent was to drop UIF and develop another way of viewing my individual
>> freedoms.
>
>Well, "sloppy in its authorship" is a bit hard.
I don't see why, I was referring to myself and that is how I see it.
>Admittedly, you coined
>the phrase but didn't define the concept, but that isn't necessarily
>sloppy.
I did develop its concept as I saw it at the time. You just didn't agree
with it. You asked me for a definition, while I stated that I did see how
it could be defined in that I was beginning to doubt its significance or
purpose, i.e., superfluous adjective.
> You left it to the rest of us on the >H list to define it, and
>that was surely good for the subject matter and for the community.
Not define it completely, but to explore it.
> Our
>work didn't take the path you expected, it took the path that those that
>worked on it determined, which can't be a surprise to anyone.
Not exactly. It took several paths, as so expressed by the number of people
who participated in voicing views. Some I agreed with, others I did not.
>If you want an ideology that meets your own requirements exactly, I'm
>afraid you're going to have to develop it yourself, Natasha! (:-)
Gee thanks Rich! But, no, I don't have to develop an new ideology, I am
already a Transhuman Extropian. And, I'm quite happy with that now. I can,
however, develop _myself_ and this action brings me great joy. I'm
automorphing my individual freedom.
Cheers!
Natasha
Natasha Vita More
(f/k/a Nancie Clark) http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon
"The best defense is an artful offense."
Automorph Art "One thing is needed - 'to give style' to one's character -
a great and rare art!" Nietzsche