LS Re: What's wrong with the SOM? (Note below)


Ant McWatt (ant11@liverpool.ac.uk)
Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:53:00 +0100


On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:47:29 +0000 Ant McWatt
<ant11@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:

> Dear Diana,
>
> Thanks again for your positive note recently. I`ve got
> the following comments on what has been written on the...

> In thinking about new members who have not grasped (an
> ironic phrase, I admit) the importance of keeping Dynamic
> Quality undefined in the MOQ, I would suggest it would be
> a good idea to expand on principle/guideline number one
> and re-write it as:

> "It is important to note that the following
> principles/guidelines are not stating anything ultimately
> true about Quality which is beyond definition. The
> principles/guidelines of/to the MOQ are stated solely for
> pragmatic purposes and are liable to change at any time."

Hello Diana and LS,

Looking at this paragraph again, I`d change the last
sentence so the whole phrase would read:

"It is important to note that the following
principles/guidelines are not stating anything ultimately
true about Quality which is beyond definition. The
principles/guidelines of/to the MOQ are stated solely for
pragmatic purposes and are provisional."

It`s simpler and more in line in what I`m attempting to get
across here i.e. in other words it has more Quality.

Anthony.

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:48 CEST