P3D Stereo Nomenclature 2000

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Abram (the droll) Klooswyk opines that Bruce (the innocent) Springsteen
could not have anticipated how the "cyclops" discussion would continue
into the new year.  Actually, Bruce is never surprised at any minor side
topic that escalates into a lengthy (and I admit articulate, amusing and
erudite) wrangle on this list.  What DOES surprise Bruce is that his own
lengthy and presumptuous assault on a central question of stereoscopic
matters - the meaning of orthostereo - has yielded so little debate of any
kind, thusfar.  Why for instance Tony, with his inimitable flair for the
killing "mot juste", could skewer poor obsessed Larry with:

>Now, I know that you believe you have delivered an argument of
>impeccable logic and irrefutable evidence. Believe me, I GET YOUR POINT.
>But to me, your point is trivial and silly.

when he might as well have directed the same arrow at me, is a source of
continuing puzzlement.  I certainly deserve to have my clock cleaned - but
the most I've received so far is a mild reminder from Abram that
prescriptive definitions which run counter to established ones had better
be tied to something more concrete than perception if they hope to gain
currency.   (I know, but I dream big dreams - and my definition of ortho
lies only in the objective space of geometry, before the brain comes into
play - I concede that the brain will play havoc with perspective, but we
must measure things anyway!)

Is my argument too foolish for attention?  Or too sound for rebuttal?
Can none of you good gentlemen spare a drop of your bile for me?  I
thirst...

Bruce (the Patient Masochist) Springsteen

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com