[AndrewC]

AndrewC: I don't remember the exact words I wrote, but I was being just plain bratty in the circuit chips thread. That was wrong of me, and I apologize.

Thanks for the apology, but there was really nothing for which you needed to apologize. You were defending a subject about which you cared and had knowledge. Now, I may disagree with a particular item you consider in your arena, but that passes no judgement on you. I do not remember that you were bratty. That dubious "honor" goes to others, the which are forgotten until the resurrection of old ghosts. Your deportment was not abusive in any way. Thanks again for your apology. I likewise should apologize, if I caused you to think I was attacking you or your profession(genetic programming?). I was not. I was questioning the hyperbole associated with a particular article. I apologize if I was not clear.

[VadeRetro]

I do not remember that you were bratty. That dubious "honor" goes to others ...

Why, you gol'durn ... [Looks at calendar] ... Never mind! [Grumble, grumble!]

[Nataku X]

AndrewC, thank you for explaining your motive... indeed, I visualized it as an attack on genetic programming simply because it had the word "genetic" or "evolutionary" in it. The design issue related to genetic programming is all about semantics anyway (much like is an individual beehive a design by mindless bees, or "design by proxy" by God?).

No apology is needed--just got upset by the defensiveness. Thanks for explaining things; it really did help out, and I hope we can have better debates now that we know each other's motives better. BTW, I'm not in genetic programming--which is more like a subset of the AI field--but in computer modelling of biology/evolution. The two can have some overlap, though.

Maybe you can teach me the combinatronics behind the old "if you get 30 people in a room, the chances are almost 100% that two people will share the same birthday" trick?