On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, Neal Schlein wrote: > On Dec 17, 2015 8:50 AM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers" < > callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, John Sweeney via Callers wrote: >>> >>> Whether complete standardisation is a good thing or a bad thing is another >>> matter entirely; we all have our own opinions about MWSD :-) >> >> Note that MWSD is not completely standardized -- it's more like the C >> programming language with areas that are ill-defined, or at least which >> only extremely nitpicky people know how to do correctly. > > Umm...Aahz, I think you missed the point about standardization in contra > versus MWSD.
Maybe, but I was responding specifically to the whole phrase "complete standardisation". I can rant on and on about the falsity of "dancing by definition". ;-) Obviously square dancing is more standardized than contra. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> "In 1968 it took the computing power of 2 C-64's to fly a rocket to the moon. Now, in 1998 it takes the Power of a Pentium 200 to run Microsoft Windows 98. Something must have gone wrong." --/bin/fortune