..
(Longwinded ad hominem rant snipped).


Mr. Ceebee, you need to learn a few things before blindly shooting-down
someone who disagrees with one of your mere opinions.

First and foremost, the fact that a few others here have consistently
resorted to personal attacks on me because I dared to disagree with something
they wrote is hardly evidence that my criticism of YOUR attack is anything
remotely resembling an ad hominem attack on YOU. This simply demonstrates
your own problems with logic -- a field in which you have attempted to pose as
some kind of expert, which you obviously are not.

Secondly, you are right that I have leaped into the middle of a discussion;
but you are dead wrong to assume that I need any knowledge of your prior
postings in order to state an opinion on the one I did read, and to which I
replied. Again, your difficulties with logic are revealing.




In my opinion, the real question is not whether it can be done by using
computers, but *how well* can it be done, and is that well enough to justify
all the trouble? In this context, I fully understand and sympathize with your
position, for the most part.
But there was a time, not so very long ago, when computers were ASSUMED by
the "experts" to have no potential to reach a point which they stand far
above, today. The arguments for their severe limitations were as numerous as
they were flawed. Let us try not to "lose the same way" twice, by vast
underestimation of the computer's potential.