Sai Emrys wrote:
>>There is IMO little doubt that some 2D systems are basically created for
>>that reason - but that is certainly not Sai had in mind, and I agree
>>with him in referring to these systems as not _fully_ 2D.
>
>
> IIRC, it took a while for me to convince you of that, or of what the
> hell I was trying to get at in the first place. :-P
Yes, it did. But when I understood the implication of _fully_, I was
convinced.
> Which is a side question: how do we explain this idea in something
> *less* than a couple-hundred-entry thread? I find it hard to give a
> brief description that actually gets the intended idea across, rather
> than one of the many it's easily confused with.
I agree - that's why I suggested to Yahya that he take a look at the
mails in the first NLF2DWS of last May & early June. He'll be able to
follow my "conversion" there also ;)
--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY