2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com>om>:
You could start a thread called "if it
ain't broke don't fix it" and
there
we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than
appliances.
That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of
"broke"
and "fix".
Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have
consequences?"
Yes. A logical argument generally starts by defining some terms and
stating a few axioms and following logical implications from those.
Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the
term "problem:" Every
edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was 5.7
years ago.
You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a
"convention" is not a "system."
I'm guessing you don't mean "edit conflict" as in when two people edit
the same page at the same time? You mean "edit *war*", yes? I don't
see why an old system is necessarily a bad one and you haven't
explained how your system would be better than the current one (which
is far more than just conventions, we have very clear policy on DR).