IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 02 April 2021 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5099E3A3832 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 01:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CsR3pBYaccOX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 01:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DBEF23A382B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 01:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31975 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2021 07:56:01 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 2 Apr 2021 07:56:01 -0000
Subject: Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <859352252.4167919.1617264911078.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <859352252.4167919.1617264911078@mail.yahoo.com> <85575541-C896-4530-B028-C0DF9BA3EA8B@ietf.org> <411426886.24320.1617306016731@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <20210401195735.GA3828@localhost> <20210402032059.GD79563@kduck.mit.edu>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <2fcdf2bd-224c-2fec-a6fc-bfe727f19f2a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 17:18:34 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210402032059.GD79563@kduck.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s9XZawfSphDRS9rbIQr88ZNKldQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2021 08:18:45 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> Stepping back to a more abstract level, the most respectful way that I know
> of to have a discussion when there are strongly conflicting views is to
> take an approach that produces messages structured roughly like

> But, while this approach is pretty reliable,

So, according to your theory, people in US can reliably determine
which party is better, Democratic or Republican.

To proof usefulness of your theory, please do so before applying
your theory to IETF.

						Masataka Ohta

PS

Feel free to determine Communist is best.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email