* Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-01 00:15]: > # from Aristotle Pagaltzis > # on Monday 30 June 2008 14:42: > >> But *even if* the line was difficult to find, it seems to that >> just because we were unable to agree exactly where it is >> doesn’t imply that we’d be unable to agree when a metric is >> way over it. I can’t imagine anyone ever proposing a Has No >> CamelCase metric in all seriousness and without getting struck >> down swiftly. > > If all of the debatable metrics were provided as information, > rather than held-up as a golden target, there would be no need > to strike down such a thing.
Maybe, but my point was about whether metrics can be inarguable, and how to decide which metrics are. You seemed to be saying that such a question offered a slippery slope, and that therefore it was not possible to draw a line between debatable metrics and non-debatable. I asserted that doing so is quite simple. When I said that a metric would be struck down I meant it in the sense of proposals to include debatable metrics in the group of functional ones. That would, hopefully, indeed lead to a swift strike-down. But yes, I agree with your point insofar as that once you have functional (and thus universally applicable and universally helpful) metrics separated out from the inaccurate and in any case debatable and merely informational ones, then sure, you can provide those as neutral data points in a non-judgmental adjunct list without ill effects. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
