Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm glad we're all laughing about this. Seriously.
It sounds to me like you (GRJ) are advocating for changes to the glossary definitions, which is a very different thing than simply adopting others that support a desired interpretation. That is logically sound.
Where the lock is concerned, there were ways that I could have killed mine that would have required leaving otherwise-stock parts off, and one way - a more complex way - that I could have done it leaving them intact. I assumed that those bits needed to stay, so I did it the hard, "right" way.
All web hyperbole aside, I simply get worried when we institutionalize sloppy interpretations, we let the proverbial camel's nose under the flap of our shared tent. Are wiper bottles or signal stalks the end of the IT world as we know it? Obviously not.
But if we don't draw the line where it is defined by the text of the rules, where DO we?
And as long as the line keeps moving, we are in very real danger of losing control of the state of our category, particularly now that it has been taken out of stasis by the hard work of the current ITAC.
K
EDIT - I don't claim omnicience or anything even close to it. That's why I lean so heavily to the actual text of the rules.
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 11, 2005).]
K,