[sbarre]

I actually upvoted you, for the record. But you drew a distinction between "in-house standards" and "the framework's standards" (which are by definition probably taken from widely adopted standards).

If you were implying that those two things might be identical then you did a bad job of conveying that (and then why even comment?)

[mbrutsch]

> I actually upvoted you, for the record.

That's why I said "you and my downvoters", rather than "you and my other downvoters". I am apparently very bad at making simple points.

> But you drew a distinction between "in-house standards" and "the framework's standards"

One is used in-house for all things relevant, one applies to a framework. In that, they are distinct.

> (which are by definition probably taken from widely adopted standards).

Probably.

> If you were implying that those two things might be identical then you did a bad job of conveying that.

sigh. Two things can be true at the same time. I give up.

[sbarre]

It's always possible to craft an anecdotal argument to disprove a generalized statement. We were obviously dealing in apples and oranges here..

I was making a generalized statement that likely applies to a large number of places (but indeed not all places), and you were providing a specific but not really comparable counter-point in return.

So yes, we were both right, but then again I ask "why reply?" if you're not replying in a similar context.

That's like me saying "the oceans are vast and dangerous" and you saying "but a pond is relatively safe"... You're technically correct, but what does it have to do with my initial statement?