On 10-Aug-11 10:16 AM, ss wrote: > There is another contradiction in that article that has an interesting, if > roundabout connection with Silk list. That is the question of "assuming > goodwill". It would be difficult for anyone reading that article to assume > that > there is much goodwill in there. On those grounds alone the article fails to > qualify for discussion on here :) IMO
I think I've addressed this in an earlier post. This is a mischaracterisation of the rule of assuming goodwill. As I said earlier, "Assume goodwill" also implies "in the absence of evidence to the contrary". That is to say, the act of assuming goodwill is a *default position*. Neither is it intended to apply in all situations nor is it a substitute for exercising judgement. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
