Klaus,
My beginning point in the following argument is acceptance of standard dictionary definitions of the words used.
Your argument, though interesting, describes a non-design activity in that the results, if random outcomes can properly be called results, are unpredictable. Design as a plan to produce something - material or immaterial. Design is considered effective the something produced reflects the plan - the design is considered to have failed when the result is other than planned. To modify the purpose as you propose redefines design and such a redefinition, though interesting, is a new definition of a new thing: it's not design. You can make (design) a word to mean anything you want (random) but the new thing is not the original thing.
Nor were I suppose your written words expected to have a random result, they were designed to communicate your point. And they did. And I take issue.
Mike
|