Reed:
>>Unenforceable. Plus, you are begging the argument. We
>>are discussing the question: "What is truth and consistency,
>>and why do we need it, if at all?" To create some arbitrary
>>consistency-goalie makes the whole conversation moot.
David:
>As I mentioned in the message, truth and consistency are just
>examples of standards. In retrospect I should have used
>eloquence and spelling. At the moment I'm only recommending
>fairness.
Reed:
>>It makes me suspect that you are "going somewhere" with
>>this thread and that the discussion itself is just a means to
>>that end. Where are we going, David?
David:
>If everyone bought into fairness, the next step was to see
>if we could come up with a way to implement it.
OK. I'll play.
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------