>If you have that much latitude, why do you choose to interpret my
>remarks such that you disagree with them?
What criteria should I have used to interpret them?
Really, it wasn't a conscious choice as much as a reaction to how they
first struck me. I suppose I could have mulled them over, trying to figure
out what you really meant, or simply asked for clarification. But neither
action would have been necessary had you fleshed out your point more in the
first place.
As Strunk & White's put it: "Omit *needless* words" -- emphasis mine ;->
>My point is that it is not necessarily stupid to advocate something that
>goes against some part of "human nature" (whatever that is).
Ah, now this I both understand and agree with. But I also agree with what
(I think) Tim P. was saying: that some parts of human nature are difficult
enough to fight against that your agenda might be better served by
leveraging off of or subverting them in some way than in opposing them
directly.
------
Ken Kittlitz ken@kumo.com
http://www.lucifer.com/~ken
Kumo Software Corp. http://www.kumo.com