Posted by Derf on February 14, 1998 at 00:36:35:
In Reply to: Well, I got one, Dave's got another one, and Hunter too... posted by Derf on February 13, 1998 at 23:49:53:
I'd be willing to trash what I just said. Type-groups are superficial. The one little beauty of a set of groups that come closest to satisfying me? 234, 567, and 891. And it doesn't even satisfy me halfway. I'm not too fond of 126, 378, 459 either. We're all alike a little, we're all different a little. If you put any group of people together, you're bound to get some sort of cooperation out of them, even if you have to force it. A type should not be mutually exclusive EVERY which way from another type. That's what makes the 9gram just peachy to me, and that's what makes "type groupers" (including innovative ones) look rather silly (sorry if that offends anyone).