>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.
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.
>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?
If everyone bought into fairness, the next step was to see
if we could come up with a way to implement it.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/