From: Mitch Howe (mitch_howe@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Dec 04 2001 - 23:06:35 MST
The problem wasn't that Sysop was a threatening term -- the contrary; Sysop
had a very neutral connotation. The problem was that Sysop refers narrowly
to a certain minimalist, Friendly type of Singleton SI. This has left us
with "Singleton SI" as the only way to define the category we have often
casually, if improperly called "Sysop".
This was a significant problem with my Simulations essay, which I am still
planning on getting around to revising.
--Mitch Howe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Worley" <redbird@rbisland.cx>
To: <sl4@sysopmind.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: New Term: Apexmind?
> Thinking about it, though, I wonder if Sysop is really that threatening
> a term. I mean, when I first learned about the Sysop, it was through
> the list a tainted by opinions. In other words, I didn't have the facts
> about what the Sysop Theory really was. So, the question I'd like to
> pose to some of our newer members is if the Sysop seems threatening
> reading about it now, either via Eliezer's intro in CFAI or mine at:
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/sing_rc/papers/sysop.html
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT