John Clizbe wrote: > All too often we see folks too overly invested in a creation to accept > objective criticism of the idea.
There also seems to be a tendency to misread what I think are very neutral statements as being very dry snark. E.g., when I said I didn't see the reasoning, and having reread it I still didn't, it wasn't meant to be insulting: it was meant quite literally. If there was a line of reasoning there, I missed it on both the first and second reads-through. Maybe that means there was no reasoning, maybe that means I wasn't astute enough to read it. With all that said, I have discovered it is generally best to read people's statements in a way that gives them the benefit of the doubt. W.r.t. my experiences, I'll just quote Rodney Whitaker again: "Do not fall into the error of the artisan who boasts of twenty years experience in his craft while in fact he has only one year of experience -- twenty times." I make errors as easily as anyone else. E.g., I was wrong a couple of weeks ago about why there was no choice #3 in the subkey generation menu; I said that if memory served it belonged to Elgamal signing keys, which have since been removed -- bzzt, wrong. A couple of months ago David Shaw and I had a very vigorous argument about some of the engineering choices in the OpenPGP specification. After mulling it over for a couple of weeks, I've come around: David's arguments were more persuasive than mine. I'm not sure if I was wrong, per se -- we were arguing about a matter of personal opinion -- but I certainly had the weaker arguments. Beware of all experts. Experts are wrong as much as anybody else. Experts are just wrong with much greater authority. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
