On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:27:04PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > So, let me try one more time. When you say "what do you think it's > trying to say", what do you think you're trying to say?
I'm trying to say that I think it's *too* ambiguous. Where do you draw the line between what is "by hand" and what isn't? Can you give me an example of "not by hand"? (Especially if running X apps counts as "by hand", which I would have definitely classified as not-by-hand.) > (See how annoying it is to apply that approach to everything? No, actually, I think that was an excellent question; the problem is obviously not that I don't understand, it's that the extreme ambiguity makes me uncomfortable. Thanks for helping to clarify that. > I'm kinda getting fed up of policy not being plain English any more > because everyone nitpicks at the tiniest little piece of ordinary > English idiom.) Now there I agree completely. I'd rather have ambiguity that obscure, unreadable legalese anyday. I was hoping that it was possible to find a *compromise* between *pure* ambiguity and insane precision, though. But maybe not. *shrug* -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
