On 17/04/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/17/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:>
> You mean, rather than just lower the
now-ridiculous requirements at RFA?
That approach has a record of at least 2 years of
total failure.
I'm now going through the RFAs noting opposes that are irrelevant to
the question "is this user safe with the tools? are they going to go
nuts?" and suggesting they be ignored. Others are welcome to do so as
well.
- d.