Glenn wrote
> This certainly appears non-responsive to me. Everyone knows that RNAs aren't
> proteins. Where was I supposed to make that assertion? I also said nothing
> in the above about information theory.
>
> Tell you what, this is so frustrating that you can have the last word in
> this thread. I prefer to dialogue with people who respond to what I say.
I'm very sorry, Glenn! I certainly did not intend to be non-responsive
to what you said!
The paragraph you objected to focussed on just one of the things you
mentioned and took for granted that you knew what I had said before.
Within just four exchanges, our dialog ballooned into a sequence of 25
items of statement and response, with some repetition. So I wanted to
simplify matters by rearanging the sequence of the 25 items, grouping
them under 6 topical headings which I labelled A ****, B ****, ... F
****, explaining this at the beginning of my last post. Also, I prefaced
the whole thing with your and my spiritual/philosophical "curriculum
vitae" - which probably color our respective opinions, just as an aid to
understanding these. I am sorry if this procedure, perhaps
unconventional in a list, has thrown you out of the track.
I hope we can get back to a serious discussion. I certainly read
carefully what you write and consider your arguments. So I found it
strange that you broke into my telling you about the (historical!)
evolution of my thoughts with new arguments, accusing me of a position I
never took but you thought I did, due to the brevity of my formulation.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 03:05:13 EDT