No. Martin and I don’t really ever differ on the logic of anything. We hold diff

No. Martin and I don’t really ever differ on the logic of anything. We hold different positions on what terms are bested used to represent the concept we’re trying to disambiguate. And Martin will usually think of even more conniving that we have to write the law to defend against. So it’s more of a different level of different sensitivities. Additionally, we hold slightly different priorities in that which we wish to accomplish – which is fine, since, my goal is a science by which we choose our preferences with out self or other deception. Martin is fine with that, he just also wants to advocate for a solution. So he tries to get me to push his side of the story harder than I’m often willing to while preserving the choice for others. So, I view my job, despite wanting the same solution in most of the cases, as leaving that choice to the peoples of the world to choose as they see fit. And it’s by that position I seek to preserve the legitimacy of the work as a work of science. 😉

Most people close to us understand these things, and even others understand that I have a deep affection for Martin, and I have fun with his stoicism by provoking him over nonsense disagreements at times. It’s a nerdy version of bonding by trash talking. 😉

And you know, it’s not a one way street either. I get it from him as well. 😉

Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @uthwita_press