[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Morally equivalent
From: |
Michael Heerdegen |
Subject: |
Re: Morally equivalent |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Oct 2022 01:32:58 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
> The problem was about the wording, if it turns out Stefan wrote it, then
> he is not above anybody else. The problem is that in some important ways,
> things are not precise.
Nothing in human language is precise. For me it was precise enough to
understand the meaning perfectly.
> And users do not like that.
I liked it. Most people like it much less when Stefan tries to be more
precise.
Honestly, the only problem with that wording is that it might make
people wonder whether it is some sort of technical term, which it is not
really, so it can potentially confuse people.
Michael.
- RE: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent, (continued)
Re: Morally equivalent, Bob Newell, 2022/10/16
- RE: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent, Drew Adams, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent, Michael Heerdegen, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent,
Michael Heerdegen <=
- Re: Morally equivalent, Eduardo Ochs, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent, Stefan Monnier, 2022/10/16
- Re: Morally equivalent, Dr Rainer Woitok, 2022/10/18
Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/16
Re: Morally equivalent, Michael Heerdegen, 2022/10/16
Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/16
Re: Morally equivalent, Michael Heerdegen, 2022/10/16
Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/16
Re: Morally equivalent, tomas, 2022/10/17
Re: Morally equivalent, Christopher Dimech, 2022/10/17