[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [zzdev] :zz: Trees and Family Trees (was Re: [zzdev] A Brief Introduction to TreeRaster
- To: Ted Nelson <ted@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [zzdev] :zz: Trees and Family Trees (was Re: [zzdev] A Brief Introduction to TreeRaster
- From: Tuomas Lukka <lukka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 06:43:23 +0300 (EETDST)
- Cc: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx, erik@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <184.108.40.206.20000727195315.007e13b0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Ted Nelson wrote:
> AJ sez
> >Ted: this raster will not (directly) understand the structure you use
> >in the genealogy demo, but I believe that with a slightly different
> >structure it'd be possible (idea: use human children as the tree parents).
> >Or we could make another raster for it :-)
> Hey, I've always said any view is valid. Everybody gets to see the world
> their own way, tree-dwellers included !-) I don't expect to have any uses
> for this myself, but fine for those who do.
> "Family trees" are only true trees if you figure the females have no
> ancestry -- no longer a politically correct view-- and make other odd
> adjustments to prune genetic reality.
A view showing only the male parentage could be a good way of talking
about different views that show different things... Then switching of
course to only female parentage and then to both.