[E-Lang] ERTP-aware MintMaker

Mark S. Miller markm@caplet.com
Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:51:28 -0800

At 06:49 AM Thursday 2/15/01, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>Fostering an "us vs. them" mentality here is self
>defeating -- especially when the majority of them seem already to agree
>and are silent supporters of the method you advocate (*though* they want
>rigour too).
>So I apologize for so completely misreading your note. 

[emphasis added]

I think we're rapidly converging, but I think you're still misreading my 
note.  I never advocated lack of rigor.  I like rigor.  I think rigor is 
good.  Nothing in my note contradicts this.  Earlier:

At 08:27 PM Wednesday 2/14/01, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>> If I had to choose, I'd take "open public" over "rigorous"
>> any day.
>I would not. The fact that a man proclaims over the radio that the sky
>is falling, or that a system is secure, does not make it true. I also
>want open and public, but rigorous and systematic is utterly necessary.

I said "If I had to chose".  You claimed to disagree, and then said you 
thought both were necessary.  How does this disagree with what I said?  I 
suspect it's a symptom of the same misreading.

We probably do disagree over the priority of these two.  From your note, if 
you had to chose, I suspect you'd make the opposite choice.  But as long as 
you agree "open public" is necessary, I feel no need to argue this last point.