> Your descriptions are, in my opinion, very unclear.

:-).

I suspect that what a person is thinking is strongly linked 
to what they say so that words that seem clear to them are 
unclear to others as for the recipient they lack the 
accompanying 'mental baggage'.  This is where example and 
case study can be useful. And iteration among interested 
parties to get something that works for all.

I think there is some merit in the "mainly involves people" 
aspect making something OT. Politics, religion, maybe school 
vouchers, ... have people as the focus.

Gun control is people so OT but guns per se is probably ENG.

Absolute exclusions probably need revisiting as part of the 
cleanup.
Sex, politics, religion, racism, personal denigration / 
flaming, ...  has been oft mentioned.
"Not provable by science" is understood but allows for grey 
boundaries.

There will ALWAYS be grey boundaries.

I better say here now so that it can be "critiqued" that 
something like how science is done by IPCC seems to me to be 
solidly ENG.
ie this is about how the maths and science works. Some will 
(as always) disagree and clogging up a new system from day 1 
with argument is something I'd like to avoid.

BTW - somebody (Ian?) suggested quite genuinely that I MAY 
have engineered this furore in order to try to bring about a 
new tag. I am entirely happy for him to suggest that that 
may have been my intentions. BUT I'd like to state that that 
absolutely wasn't in any way in my mind or my intention in 
any way. In retrospect, I was unwise to use the heading that 
I did in the original fateful post. If I'd been a little 
more circumspect this may not have happened.




            Russell

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist