smh. If you haven't read it, can you trust even your own ai to tell you what's in it, let alone comment on it. No, he wasn't all the things they claim he needs to be to comment or know, but he was an inter disciplinarian, which we all should be. He may not have got things perfect, but the can of worms is open and should be examined. It's a good read and thought provoking, which AI is not.
I see you've amended your reply here. No worries, youngling, you will learn. My first comment was a simple question. Have you read the book? If the answer is no, then no is the answer. Trying to say more on whether the book is worthy of your glance is meaningless and a little rude. You are starting to sound like Al and losing your humility, sir. I have read all the things you have written.
smh. If you haven't read it, can you trust even your own ai to tell you what's in it, let alone comment on it. No, he wasn't all the things they claim he needs to be to comment or know, but he was an inter disciplinarian, which we all should be. He may not have got things perfect, but the can of worms is open and should be examined. It's a good read and thought provoking, which AI is not.
Fascinating.
I see you've amended your reply here. No worries, youngling, you will learn. My first comment was a simple question. Have you read the book? If the answer is no, then no is the answer. Trying to say more on whether the book is worthy of your glance is meaningless and a little rude. You are starting to sound like Al and losing your humility, sir. I have read all the things you have written.
I see. Thank you.