Follow-up Comment #2, bug #53052 (project groff):
There is nothing wrong with the content of the patch.
It is based on and uses more knowledge than the current code.
It is thus superior to the current code.
There is no data to support your claims. Should people simply accept
that as true, without any facts or references?
Is that a good best current practice? What about the future?
Is this project based on or accepts non-science?
Is the policy: if not wrong(?), it may (shall) not be made better?
###
Herman Rubin in the Usenet forum "misc.education":
In the sciences, authority counts for little. Quoting
Newton will not avail, unless he was correct in that
instance. He was not always correct.
###
>I know people who can pass tests and get full scholarships to college
>who make bad decisions. I don't think the ability to puke information
>onto a bubble sheet is going to help a person make a decision.
I agree. Making decisions requires thinking, and this is not
developed my memorization and routine manipulations. What is
needed is getting general principles, and having to decide when
and how to apply them in situations other than those in class
or in the textbooks.
We have far too many bureaucrats in decision making positions
who can only go by the book, or try to impose a "moral" version
which is certainly not within their authority.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?53052>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
bug-groff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-groff
