Hi Lex!

"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote pages of text such as:
> > In that case I can only interpret your view as "I don't want any rules".
> 
> Just one more post, because this is getting really silly.  I am not just
> arguing for its own sake, and it is rude and presumptious of you to
> suggest this.  My time is limited and I spend it carefully.

Lex, I don't think you are arguing for its own sake - and I did not mean
that.
I was just trying to make sense of it all, see below.

I wrote:
> > abberation.  The criterion for a good rule (or a good law) is that it
> > improves things on the whole when it exists, not that it corresponds to
> > good practice.
> 
> If I didn't believe having *some* rules could lead to an improvement I
> would never have suggested it. Also - we have *no* spoken rules today
> (only a big heap of unspoken ones) and you are already reacting against
> it.
> 
> In that case I can only interpret your view as "I don't want any rules".
 
What I meant is that I am asking if we should set up a few rules and
what they in that case should be. And AFAICT you are as a response
pointing out the dangers of piling rules on top of each other. I just
felt *that* was a tad strong reaction when I was just asking for a few
rules especially since we don't have *any* right now.

So me asking for a few rules, when there are *none* - and your reaction,
led me to that interpretation. I was more expecting you to reply in the
lines of "No, of course not - I mean this...".

regards, Göran

PS. I am glad to see that the criterion you mentioned above is one that
I myself wholeheartedly agree with. So I really don't think we are
disagreeing that much - we just happened to get off wrong here or
something.