From: chinagreenelvis@gmail.com   
      
   On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 12:22:03 AM UTC-4, myriadsma...@yahoo.com wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:45:44 PM UTC-5, Eric Vinyard wrote:   
   > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 11:36:18 PM UTC-4, myriadsma...@yahoo.com   
   wrote:   
   > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:33:38 PM UTC-5, myriads   
   a...@yahoo.com wrote:   
   > > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:29:40 PM UTC-5, Eric Vinyard wrote:   
   > > > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 11:11:28 PM UTC-4, myr   
   adsma...@yahoo.com wrote:   
   > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:09:16 PM UTC-5, Eric Vinyard   
   wrote:   
   > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:26:58 PM UTC-4,   
   myriadsma...@yahoo.com wrote:   
   > > > > > > > > > Damned quality stuff there. I hadn't seen this before.   
   > > > > > > > >    
   > > > > > > > >    
   > > > > > > > > Damned fine commentation there.   
   > > > > > > >    
   > > > > > > > It's more to think about than to respond to.   
   > > > > > >    
   > > > > > > Pirsig would ask what you mean by 'quality'.   
   > > > > >    
   > > > > > Quality is relative.   
   > > > > >    
   > > > > > In this case, I would say that a post is of high quality when the   
   way to proceed with the conversation is either not immediately obvious, or the   
   content at least doesn't possess any clear errors or lack something that needs   
   to be addressed.   
   > > > > >    
   > > > > > There is a wonderful moment in many conversations and debates where   
   someone says something worth *considering* rather than instantly rebutting or   
   affirming. Litewave's assessment is, in my opinion, one of those.   
   > > > > >    
   > > > > > Have I made myself clear? Or should all of that have gone without   
   saying?   
   > > > > >    
   > > > > > ;)   
   > > > >    
   > > > > Does not all conversation lack something that needs to be addressed?   
   > > >    
   > > > Quality conversation most of all?   
   > >    
   > > Not so much conversation, but the content of any given part of it. Even   
   still, maybe, but the lack is not always apparent. I mean, if you want to   
   really get down to it, anything always lacks everything else by definition.   
   >    
   > Yes, by definition... Often it lacks part of itself by definition.   
      
   A thing lacking itself. Or part of itself.   
      
   How can something lack part of itself?   
      
   I'm not asking. Just repeating a meaningful question. I like it.   
      
   Kind of like I ♥ Huckabees. "How am I not myself? How am I not myself."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)