On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 09:18:52AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:23:55PM -0500, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 07:14:44PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote: > > > Now, can we *>PLEASE<* stop with the semantic games? > > > > I'm not sure who you're speaking to here; it certainly can't be me. How > > about directing your comments to those to whom they apply? > > The training list is pretty low volume, but this discussion of what > "proven" means has gone on for about 23 messages. Given the nature > of the forum and this discussion, this subthread has turned mostly > wordplay and posturing. This comment wasn't directed at you > personally, but at the disturbingly argumenative tone this subthread > has taken. Ah. Understood. I certainly did not intend to contribute to that tone - but all the discussion had brought up an interesting point. As well, from seeing later posts in this thread, I would say that it has been useful: a couple of people have come up with very interesting suggestions for discriminating between the bad and the good. 'Tis an ill wind, etc.
> No one is arguing that brian be the sole gatekeeper of a trainers list > until the end of time. If you think that setting criteria for inclusion > in the trainers list is bogus, we'd like to hear your POV. If you'd like > to see different criteria for inclusion, we'd like to hear your POV. Hm. Truth to tell, I hadn't been able to come up with any that didn't take a lot of personal involvement and time - but the cogency of other people's suggestions here has definitely struck home with me; most of them seem to be well worth consideration. > But let's please move away from the arguing about "proven". OK? :-) <grin> Wasn't my intention in the first place, but - it's a deal. Ben Okopnik -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The trick is to keep an open mind, without it being so open that your brain falls out.
