Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!purdue!decwrl!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpccc!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfclp!fritz
From: fritz@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM (Gary Fritz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Re: BSI Prolog terms of reference
Message-ID: <6960005@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM>
Date: 25 Apr 88 15:09:40 GMT
References: <256@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Organization: HP SDE, Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 23

>      I don't think the responsibilities of his position really do
> demand that Chris read and deal reasonably with unreasonable
> articles.  I'm not questioning your criticism of Chris's suggestion
> about Richard's motives, but I think an important thing to remember
> is:
>                         This Is Usenet.


I really don't care if the messages reach Chris via Usenet, carrier pigeon,
registered mail, smoke signals, or telepathy.  It is the *content* that is
important, NOT the medium.  If Richard (or anyone else) raises valid points
that indicate that perhaps BSI is doing something wrong, then BSI (or any
other committee which purports to be defining a standard for all posterity)
has a responsibility to pay attention to them and see if, just perhaps, there
IS a problem.  If not, they have wasted a little time; but if there is a
problem, he will have saved them from making serious mistakes.

If they ignore valuable input like this, they may create an intellectual 
curiosity which has no real use in the real world.  And if this curiosity 
is foisted upon the real world as The Prolog Standard, it's likely to harm 
the progress of Prolog usage.  That would be a shame.

Gary Fritz