XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Taemon@zonnet.nl   
      
   On 25-5-2014 4:56, Clams Canino wrote:   
   > "Taemon"  wrote in message   
   > news:llqd7p$q56$1@speranza.aioe.org...   
   >> On 24-5-2014 5:19, Clams Canino wrote:   
   >>> I would suggest the premise of the argumet, is from the point of view of   
   >>> "He that cannot tell them apart."   ie Magic to him.   
   >> Well... In that case it would hold, yes, but if it depends on point of   
   >> view I wouldn't call it a law.   
   > Law no?   
   > But the very premise of the statement is that it was "sufficintly advanced   
   > to be indistinguishable from magic".  So the point of view is prima facie   
   > that of the beholder.   
      
   Well, it's known as Clarke's Third Law. And I disagree with it. If you   
   add "to a magic-believing beholder" then yes, that would work. But in   
   that case the whole thing gets a bit lame, since you don't need very   
   advanced technology to impress someone who believes in magic. Generally.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)