On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Antony Blakey <antony.bla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 19/02/2009, at 2:11 PM, Paul Davis wrote: > >> My third thought is that we can be purists or pragmatists, but not >> both. > > You can be a pragmatist without being a deliberate spoiler. A pragmatist > will shit in the public square only if there is no reasonable alternative. > In this case there is. >
Is there? First you have to make an argument for which is more pure. And given this specific example there really no is argument. You might want to argue that there's no "Make full commit" header, but then I just argue "Well not yet, submit it as one" and then we argue for awhile on which is right and wrong and there really is no answer. If you've already taken a shit in the public square, why must we concern our selves with pissing in the corner? >> We are already not being pure in a number of respects so I find >> it a bit disingenuous to claim purism on a given topic while blithely >> ignoring concerns on other topics. > > You are suggesting that once you've done one wrong thing you may as well > make a career of it. > You're suggesting that there's no elephant. > Antony Blakey > -------------------------- > CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd > Ph: 0438 840 787 > > A priest, a minister and a rabbi walk into a bar. The bartender says "What > is this, a joke?" > > >
