Gary Gifford wrote on Thu, Apr 7, 2005 12:19 AM UTC:
Of course I am not laying claim to Bario... though if I am seen as a
'Quantom' one might see that as a possibility. As to wanting people to
play by the rules I am using... nonsense. Reading my previous comments
will show that this is not the case. In fact, the other day I commented,
and I quote, 'Perhaps there should be 2 variations of Bario? (1)
Bario,Logical Deduction Variant and (2) Bario, Quantom Variant {of course,
the names could be changed). The course of time would tell us whether one
was desireable over the other, or inform us perhaps, that each was equally
enjoyable. Regardless of which variant (or both) surface, one thing is
certainly true. The rules themselves are of a Bario language. Full of
potential, but remaining undefined, or atleast defined with definitions
not agreed upon by all.'
I also commented, 'So, what will the final established rules be? Mr.
Smith, I salute your logic. I think we are seeing the same things in
Bario, just disagreeing on how our observations should be used to develop
a set of standard rules.'
To me, none of this sounds like I am trying to claim Bario. Or to force
others to play by rules CarlosCarlos and I are using. Apparently my
salute to logic was pre-mature.
Of course I am not laying claim to Bario... though if I am seen as a 'Quantom' one might see that as a possibility. As to wanting people to play by the rules I am using... nonsense. Reading my previous comments will show that this is not the case. In fact, the other day I commented, and I quote, 'Perhaps there should be 2 variations of Bario? (1) Bario,Logical Deduction Variant and (2) Bario, Quantom Variant {of course, the names could be changed). The course of time would tell us whether one was desireable over the other, or inform us perhaps, that each was equally enjoyable. Regardless of which variant (or both) surface, one thing is certainly true. The rules themselves are of a Bario language. Full of potential, but remaining undefined, or atleast defined with definitions not agreed upon by all.' I also commented, 'So, what will the final established rules be? Mr. Smith, I salute your logic. I think we are seeing the same things in Bario, just disagreeing on how our observations should be used to develop a set of standard rules.' To me, none of this sounds like I am trying to claim Bario. Or to force others to play by rules CarlosCarlos and I are using. Apparently my salute to logic was pre-mature.