Again your penchant for chaotic analysis taints your argument. Astro was sold to the circus and so at that time was not owned by the State, but was a circus performer. The 80's Astro was never shown in the United States so we speak here of the 60's original and '03 interpretation. Astro was used as a gladiator, fighting other robots, and refused to destroy his defeated foes.
I do not understand how you suppose this statement takes issue with anything I have said in this thread. If you read my posting dated Jun 9 2004, you would see that I discuss the circus, saying essentially what you say, and taking the same position as you do here. I know I wrote somewhere about his reluctance to destroy other robots (it could have been on the pages I am making, and have not yet published). You are the one who maintains that the 80s series is not part of the discussion, but as I have already referred to it several times, it clearly is.
However, to keep things clear, let us now remove it from consideration. Thus, from this point onward, let us refer to the manga, the 1960s, and 2003 series.
In reference to the 2003, yes, it seems reasonable to allow that Atom was state property, for several reasons. First, he was found among the other items left in the wake of Dr. T's administration. Second, he was activated by Dr. O on state property using state resources. One may assume that somewhere within the accounting department, he is listed along side his value in $$.
Now I will consider your second paragraph, absent its references to the 1960s series:
The police Chief in the '03 comes to Dr.O and says, " please send Astro on this case." Dr.O refuses, and tell's Tawashi that Astro is in school playing with children his own age. But Denkou goes looking for Astro.
So far, so good. But then you as usual, draw a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence you have just mentioned:
And I've allllready said too much. "The meek shall inherit the earth." Apples are not oranges... AI does not equal Astro.
Seeing that you very authoritatively state this, I must now ask,
Where have I ever said that AI does equal Atom? I maintain that I have not made such a statement, and as such your response is strange, at best. Rather, I have asserted that there were similarities between Atom & David. Dispite your many words, you have not effectively refuted my position, but, rather, have made statements that are irrelevant to anything I have said!
