Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!wang!harvee!esj
From: esj@harvee.UUCP (Eric S Johansson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: What should the Standard include?
Message-ID: <8485126@harvee.UUCP>
Date: 20 Feb 91 01:47:42 GMT
References: <2363.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Organization: gators 'r us
Lines: 37
X-Version: Rodney's UUCP modules 05/09/90 V1.15

In article <2363.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us
(ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:
>
> Category 10,  Topic 30
> Message 97        Sat Feb 16, 1991
> B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 16:23 EST
>  
> From Mitch Bradley:
> 
> > The problem with criteria, either "necessary" or "sufficient",
>  > is that there is no mechanism for either consistently applying
>  > or enforcing them.
> 
> I couldn't have said it better myself!  However, this is not a problem with
> criteria per se -- it's a problem with the TC.
> 
How can you claim this is a problem with the TC?  "necessary" and "sufficient"
are ambigious terms.  For example, would you go into an auto
mechanics shop, hand him (or her) your car and say "do what ever is 
necessary and send me the bill."  I think not (otherwise I want to be
your auto mechanic :-)

When ever any organization is working with ambigious criteria, you
get inconsistent results.  This is true for contracts,
standards, agreements, or any situation where group sez "we will do this"
and does not define "this".


--- eric
--
...
^^^     eric johansson   UUCP ...!uunet!wang!harvee!esj esj@harvee.uucp
* *     a juggling fool  AT&T (617) 577-4068 (w)
 o                       HAM  ka1eec
\_/			 CSNET johansson%hydra@polaroid.com
			 or      hydra!johansson@polaroid.com
	source of the public's fear of the unknown since 1956