From: Thorfinn (thorfinn@tertius.net.au)
Date: Mon Jun 16 2003 - 22:13:01 CDT
On Mon 16 Jun 2003 at 06:38:09PM -0400, in <Pine.LNX.4.21.0306161832420.11746-100000@deathstar.prodigy.com>,
Usenet News Support <support@prodigy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Thorfinn wrote:
> > 2. I'm entirely happy for the requirement to be in USEAGE, rather than
> > USEFOR, and am leaning strongly on the side of "Put it in USEAGE".
> Since you have made the point about existing scoring filters, why have it
> off in USAGE? It does have an effect of the behaviour of existing software
> to do it as the woding suggests.
Thought I'd pipe up on this question, since I hadn't quite covered it in the
summary points, and it seems to be specifically directed at me, rather
than just being further repeated rantings. Mostly every other followup
to those points is answered by re-reading what I wrote.
Anyway... Why have it off in USEAGE, rather than USEFOR? Primarily, I
don't feel that the functionality in question is a "big deal". I don't
think it causes harm that can be considered really significant to not do
it. And, in some ways, I feel that USEFOR is for "technical issues",
whilst USEAGE is for "social issues".
"Subject: Re: " and how to use it properly is *completely* a "social
issue", so I feel it belongs there. Yes, there is a technical
requirement on some software, in order to support it... so there is
argument for putting it in USEFOR rather than USEAGE, but I don't think
that it's a big enough deal that we should bother fighting about it.
ook,
Thorf
--
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn">thorfinn@tertius.net.au</a>
Do not attempt to use Australian slang, unless you are a trained
linguist and good in a fistfight.
-- Douglas Adams