Friday, July 11, 2014

Best Practices Aren't

Best Practices Aren't

I assume that I'm directing myself at a group of people who know that there's no such thing as a Best Practice, and that we shouldn't use the term. There's a bit of consternation around this, some people defending the term whilst understanding the nature of contextual value of practices.

I'm working under the assumption that you've read this: http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/27

Of course there are no Best Practices! Of course practices only apply to a particular context! Okay, with that under our belt I'd like to talk about why we shouldn't use the term at all, and why it matters that we shouldn't.

It's A Trap!

Saying what we mean is important. We can call poison "food" and assume that tacitly we all know it's actually poison, really - until the amateur or black-and-white thinker wanders in and eats it, or some dishonest salesperson sells it to someone as food (after all, that's what we're calling it). In the same way we can all agree that "best" just means a particularly good thing to do in the context, but when people use "best practices" as a benchmark, ignoring the subtleties in the change in context, bad things can happen. Someone can look at a standard in one company and assume it will work for them because they're in the same industry - but there's a lot more to context than that. There's methodologies used, hours worked, company culture, relationships between people and teams, budget, development speed, even the geographical location of the office building. So why do we need this secret society of people who understand that "Best Practice" doesn't really mean "best"? Especially when we can talk about practices without using that term in the first place? Maybe it's some sort of egotistical elitism or some desire to find tranquil simplicity in a complex world, but either way it should affront your professional ethics to want to be part of the Secret Society of Avoidable Confusion.

It's Lazy Thinking

Understanding the flaws in a practice - the contexts in which it won't work or has little value - is important. Knowing what we should do is better than assuming that emulating someone else's practices will be just fine. It's thinking like this that permits tool vendors to sell snake oil cure-alls for the testing problem, and permits the persistence of worthless certifications. We can say "of course it's for a particular context" but that's because we don't want to have to think about the effect of context on the value of our practices because then we'd have to do some work. If you're the sort of person that believes that "automation" is more than an automatic check execution system to replace good, exploratory testing then you understand the importance that context has on the value of a practice. So don't let your brain go on holiday just because someone stuck the word "best" in front of "practice" and claimed it as some sort of benchmark of greatness, even if they permit you the luxury of implicit contextual value. Think critically, and don't let anyone stop you from doing so.

It Replaces Discussion

The "of course it's for a particular context" argument is the end of the discussion of our practices when we hold Best Practices up as a benchmark. Thinking about our practices, and their value, with the influence of practices we know work well elsewhere is not something to avoid or be ashamed of. There seems to be some resistance to the idea of eliminating best practices because of laziness, and some fear of "reinventing the wheel" - except that we're not re-inventing a wheel, we're adapting the wheel, changing the wheel, assigning cost to the wheel, using a different kind of wheel, examining how suitable the wheel is for our purpose and perhaps deciding that we don't need a wheel. "Don't re-invent the wheel" does not mean that we should use stone cylinders with a hole in them on our motor vehicles. Use the right wheel for what you need to do, even if someone says that a particular wheel is the "Best". Use your awesome tester powers of critical thinking.

It's Not What "Best" Means

"Best" is a superlative. The form of the adjective "good" that infers that it is the greatest of any other possible degree of something. When you say (without hyperbole) that "this is the best-tasting sandwich I've ever eaten" you are saying that there is no sandwich that you have ever eaten that tastes better than this one. Best Practice simply does not make sense, even with context factored in. Even for a particular context there is no Best Practice that we can know is the best one. "Best Practice for this context" means "There is no practice that exists or could be thought of that could be better than this one for this context" - which is quite the claim! Don't let people get away with that sort of thing.

An Alternative

If you really need a short-handed way to say "Best Practice" but actually mean something more like "good practice for a particular context" here are some ideas:
  • (I've found it to be an) Effective Practice
  • Cool Idea
  • The "<your name here>" Method
  • (My) Favourite Practice (for)

Or alternatively you could just talk openly and honestly about practices, where they seem to work for you, and where and how they could be applied to good affect.

14 comments:

  1. (by email)

    This made me think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge-SfYxfJDo

    I love the entire move and clip, but the relevant content is from 0:30 - 0:37.

    In the same way that we cannot claim that some practice is “Best”, we also cannot claim that some practice (or movie!) is “worst”.

    -Damian Synadinos


    I did come to wonder about "worst practice", and I think it's an interesting symptom of superlatives that they so often require a limiting set to make any sense. I think I have a new heuristic from that - where one sees a comparative and it often begs the questions "than what?" (e.g. "This process is obviously better" ... "Better than what?") I think we can apply one for superlatives that beg the question "out of what?". This is a Best Practice.... best out of what?

    Thanks for your comment!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Part of the pain I feel as a consultant, is the expectation from clients you will find the best practice for them, that you will be using best practice, recommending it, defining it, establishing it, etc. Most often they don't want to hear anything else.

    I mostly white-label consult for other consultancies (ah, the irony...) and again, they need to be selling best practice as part of landing the client. The proposals always talk about best practice.

    My approach is to water it down and avoid selling silver bullets. Your suggestion of "good practice for a particular context" is exactly the way. it still puts the words in, makes it seem more tailored and takes the first step away from talking about best practice. It usually reads something like 'applying proven techniques {tools, approaches, etc.} we will develop {establish, etc.) best in-context practices, that address the unique needs of your projects {teams, organisation, etc} '.

    Once we have the nod from management meant, because they've seen what they wanted to see, I can step them further away again. Best practice is only what makes more sense in the context of the client's unique testing problem ,as it exists at that point in time. Next day/week/month/year, it won't be best practice anymore!

    Mark.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course you are right. Of course.

    But maybe…

    But maybe the real issue is not that the expression ”best practice” is horrible and should jump off a cliff and die already? Maybe the real issue is how you go about challenging somebody who keeps using it? The expression keeps floating around in all sorts of places, like some cheap perfume people insist on buying because the ads for it are everywhere. It doesn’t seem likely to me it is going away anytime soon.

    Hearing somebody talk about best practices can trigger indignation and dilated nostrils for very good reasons. But I think discussions about this expression would be more fruitful if we could detach the trigger from it. Words uttered through clenched teeth tend to create defensiveness and resistance in the listener. And nobody wants to be made feel like a lazy thinker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But maybe the real issue is not that the expression ”best practice” is horrible and should jump off a cliff and die already?"

      First of all, the phrase is completely innocent. It's the people using it who need to stop, and the people permitting it to be used who need to step up their game.

      Secondly I do think that it's "the real issue". Challenging bad thinking wasn't my topic here, but that "Best Practice" is lazy, dangerous thinking in the first place - I was trying to get people permissive of Best Practice to shift their thinking. Of course your question of "how you go about challenging somebody who keeps using it" is a natural question to arise as a result, once we agree that it needs to stop.


      "It doesn't seem likely to me it is going away anytime soon."

      So we need to stop using it, and challenge those that do use it. All we can do is be part of the solution, but there's no need to give up hope for the future. If we didn't do anything about problems in the industry because they look too permanent we wouldn't do anything at all - in fact if it wasn't for the work of CDT forefathers in challenging the status quo in the testing industry I'd still be factory testing.


      "I think discussions about this expression would be more fruitful if we could detach the trigger from it."

      Indignation and nostril diameter are just signs that your personal boundaries have been violated. I think that that's a very important trigger. I *want* people to feel that way when they hear things that insult good thinking. Then I'd like them to offer logical arguments and counterexamples.


      "Words uttered through clenched teeth tend to create defensiveness and resistance in the listener."

      Okay, there's two points to make here. Firstly, defensiveness and resistance are not in themselves a defence for bad thinking, or preaching damaging ideas. Secondly, there's no need to clench one's teeth in discussing anything - I try to defeat societal problems by introducing a tacit agreement that we will not permit that sort of behaviour, not by trying to win over the hearts of the people responsible. I don't think being offended means that we have to express ourselves poorly or illogically, nor do any of us on either side of the argument have a right to not be offended.

      Concerning how to actually challenge bad ideas: When dealing with the use of bad thinking I find the best antidote is good thinking. You can make your arguments and have a reasoned debate. Either someone is willing to put their ideas up for examination, analysis and feedback or they are not. If they are not then they are probably a confidence trickster, and if they are then they should be willing to defend their ideas. Assuming that we're dealing with adults.


      "And nobody wants to be made feel like a lazy thinker."

      Then they shouldn't think lazily. When I read about a fault in my own thinking I use it as a learning experience. I give the same respect to others, and assume that people are willing to be wrong and willing to learn or at least willing to have a reasoned debate over the ideas. I don't think that an imagined affront on the part of the reader is enough reason to stay silent on an important issue. Moreover lazy thinking, and extolling lazy thinking, doesn't just affect them, but the entire industry. It affects me, and you, and the whole craft of testing and society itself. We each have to decide if it's more damaging to be permissive of bad ideas or to challenge them - I prefer to challenge them. And who knows, maybe I'll learn something when I do?

      Thanks for the comment!

      Delete
  4. Thank you for your answer!

    I wholeheartedly agree with this:

    "Concerning how to actually challenge bad ideas: When dealing with the use of bad thinking I find the best antidote is good thinking. You can make your arguments and have a reasoned debate. Either someone is willing to put their ideas up for examination, analysis and feedback or they are not. If they are not then they are probably a confidence trickster, and if they are then they should be willing to defend their ideas. Assuming that we're dealing with adults."

    A reasoned debate, that is exactly what I would like to see. But the expression best practice has become so loathed in the CDT community that mentioning it is like speaking orc tongue in Rivendell. The fiery swords of righteousness are lifted high and the debate quickly becomes anything but reasoned.

    I may very well be wrong but it seems to me that most of the time when people say best practice, they are using as a code phrase for ”I and many with me have found this practice to be effective and helpful in contexts that are similar to the one we are facing right now”. I agree it is a bad code phrase, popular but still unfortunate. Just asking what somebody means when saying best practice and then make your arguments why using the phrase is in itself actually a problem should be enough. If we are assuming we are dealing with adults as you wrote. I firmly believe that shaming and ridiculing is counterproductive.

    I feel a bit corny citing Maya Angelou here, but I believe she had a point when she said:
    “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

    I am working under the assumption that anybody willing to challenge the use of best practices care about their craft and want to contribute to the betterment of software testing. I am willing to accept that I am naive when I believe that most people are ready to change their viewpoint if they are given good arguments to do so. I am aware of that some folks livelihood partly depend upon the use of so called best practices.

    But I also think it is naive to believe that you will improve your position or reach your goal faster by making the tone in a debate unpleasant. That was the real point I was trying to make.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A reasoned debate, that is exactly what I would like to see. But the expression best practice has become so loathed in the CDT community that mentioning it is like speaking orc tongue in Rivendell. The fiery swords of righteousness are lifted high and the debate quickly becomes anything but reasoned."

      Well I'm not an example of this, and I don't know any. If you have examples I'd be interested in seeing them, because I've honestly not met this myself. Let's say that's the case - reactionary opinion is also often bad thinking and we should challenge that too. If anyone has an unreasonable point to make on either side of an argument I'm ready to challenge it with reason - because it's reason and logic and truth that should win out in the end if we all let it. There's no need to get all YouTube-comments about it.


      "I may very well be wrong but it seems to me that most of the time when people say best practice, they are using as a code phrase for ”I and many with me have found this practice to be effective and helpful in contexts that are similar to the one we are facing right now”. I agree it is a bad code phrase, popular but still unfortunate."

      I dealt with this in the original post. We can all agree that's what people *really* mean, but my point is that it's silly and it's wrong and it's lazy and it's dangerous. Usually when people say "I'm not racist, but..." they probably don't think that they're being racist. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't challenge it. I hope that we agree that it's dangerous and that it needs to go MORE than we need to defend the emotions of its proponents - from there we can have a different conversation about the finer points of effective debate.


      "Just asking what somebody means when saying best practice and then make your arguments why using the phrase is in itself actually a problem should be enough. If we are assuming we are dealing with adults as you wrote. I firmly believe that shaming and ridiculing is counter-productive."

      The goal isn't to shame people or ridicule them. When someone provides me with a good explanation of why I'm wrong I often feel a little ashamed and ridiculous - but I hope that I'm emotionally intelligent enough to process that as a learning experience. We suffer these things to improve ourselves and our craft. If people's delicate emotions were put before the good of the sum of human knowledge we would have stood still for millennia. The peer review process in scientific fields can be a bloodbath, where peoples ideas and hard work are torn to shreds - but we consent to it in due deference to good science. If you can do it tactfully without name-calling, I'd recommend it, but there's more at stake than someone being a bit peeved.


      “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

      Pathetic compliance to the feelings of others is no way to improve anything.

      It's ironic that that's a quote - one must suppose that people will not forget what Maya Angelou said given her long-standing and well-documented body of works, or what she did given her impressive list of awarded honours. We wouldn't say such things about her, or Neil Armstrong or Marie Curie or Alan Turing.
      [More...]

      Delete
    2. "I am willing to accept that I am naive when I believe that most people are ready to change their viewpoint if they are given good arguments to do so."

      I don't think that that's naive at all. I think that people are willing to learn, willing to be wrong and willing to change their mind about most topics with good evidence. I've seen it happen. Good ideas are memetic.

      If people are not willing to change their mind, or at least entertain the idea of changing their mind no matter what the evidence then their ideas can be fairly safely dismissed. There's little room in the world of good ideas for ad-hoc hypotheses and dogmatic thinking.

      "I am aware of that some folks livelihood partly depend upon the use of so called best practices."

      It's not hard for them to call them something else. Why not make your livelihood on being an expert in good ideas and how they're applied to different contexts? That's someone I'd employ - someone who knew some great practices and if they'd work for me, how they might work for me, how they might go wrong and what value they'd have for my context.

      A snake-oil cure-all testing solution tool sold by an unscrupulous vendor - that person's livelihood depends on the idea of Best Practices. The marketers who sell worthless certifications - those people make money from Best Practices. While they do they do damage to the testing industry, and promote lazy thinking that further damages the testing industry and the image of the craft of testing.


      "But I also think it is naive to believe that you will improve your position or reach your goal faster by making the tone in a debate unpleasant. That was the real point I was trying to make."

      I think it's an important point, and an important warning to anyone trying to challenge bad ideas. As I say, I didn't deal with how to challenge the ideas, just introduced some cohesion around not permitting bad thinking. There's no need for insults, ad hominem attacks, tantrums and derision when one has logic and reason. Equally, being offended isn't a defence.

      There are two sides to this. There's the tone you make in your counterargument, and how it's interpreted by the other party. I don't really mind if people insult me personally, but I realise that I may be in a minority in that regard. There are times when I've had an all-out shouting argument with someone when emotions ran high, then we shook hands and thanked each other for the chance to vigorously debate ideas. There have been times where I've been (to my mind) perfectly reasonable and the response has been personal insults and tantrums; which I always think is a sign that they don't have good answers to my questions, so substitute with an emotional con game (e.g. "How dare you, I've been in the industry X years!"). In my opinion we shouldn't be deliberately unpleasant, but shouldn't avoid being firm on difficult issues, nor should we accept shouting and tantrums and tears as a sign of good ideas and reasoning. Or, put simply, let's all be adults about this.

      Delete
  5. This week I am home alone taking care of my two small kids and I therefore lack both time and energy to give you a response right now.

    I will answer you as soon as I can but I would like to ask you to watch a short clip (9:35) about non-violent communication since it will partly give you some background and context to my response.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dpk5Z7GIFs&feature=youtu.be

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  6. So my domestic situation is a little less demanding right now and I'll try to put my thoughts down in words.

    "Well I'm not an example of this, and I don't know any. If you have examples I'd be interested in seeing them, because I've honestly not met this myself. Let's say that's the case - reactionary opinion is also often bad thinking and we should challenge that too. If anyone has an unreasonable point to make on either side of an argument I'm ready to challenge it with reason - because it's reason and logic and truth that should win out in the end if we all let it. There's no need to get all YouTube-comments about it."

    I am reluctant to give examples since that would feel like pointing a finger at someone. But this thread on twitter discusses more or less the same thing and might be worth skimming through if you haven't done so already:

    https://twitter.com/raine_check/status/487948561762373632

    "I dealt with this in the original post. We can all agree that's what people *really* mean, but my point is that it's silly and it's wrong and it's lazy and it's dangerous. Usually when people say "I'm not racist, but..." they probably don't think that they're being racist. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't challenge it. I hope that we agree that it's dangerous and that it needs to go MORE than we need to defend the emotions of its proponents - from there we can have a different conversation about the finer points of effective debate."

    Yes, I agree that the use of so called best practices should be challenged. But how you go about doing so in the most effective way is what I am interested in. I am not saying we should cater for other peoples feelings just because you should never upset anybody. I am saying that if the tone we use when challenging someone is offensive (mocking, ridiculing, using irony) then I believe the person who is having his beliefs challenged is less likely to listen and learn from the arguments. So when challenging someone with the honest intent of trying to transmit new ideas to that person, it is in your interest to have an attitude that is not intentionally offensive since that will hinder your message to come through. I want to keep the person I am talking to interested, that is why that persons feeling is important to me and not because it is somehow morally wrong to upset somebody.

    So if someone has been using the code phrase ”best practice” like a metaphor for many years and never experienced any problems with it, only found it convenient, then challenging it can maybe feel confusing or redundant. Like fixing something that is not considered broken. And if you at the same time feel mocked or snickered at for using the phrase, then the challenge is probably already lost.

    ”Pathetic compliance to the feelings of others is no way to improve anything. ”

    I hope you understand now that that was not what I meant by quoting Maya Angelou. And I do not think that was her point either.

    "A snake-oil cure-all testing solution tool sold by an unscrupulous vendor - that person's livelihood depends on the idea of Best Practices. The marketers who sell worthless certifications - those people make money from Best Practices. While they do they do damage to the testing industry, and promote lazy thinking that further damages the testing industry and the image of the craft of testing.”

    And those folks are probably impossible to change since it is not in their interest to change. For them that would be like sawing off the branch they are sitting on. But by influencing people who are the potential buyers of snake-oil and humbug certifications hopefully the branch (the market) will become too small to sit on.







    ReplyDelete
  7. Let me just recap:
    We agree that Best Practices is incorrect. We also agree that it's dangerous. We also agree that it's damaging to the craft. I think we can agree that we should be concerned when we hear it, and that we should challenge it. If that's all covered then as far as the original post goes we're in complete agreement.

    "But this thread on twitter discusses more or less the same thing and might be worth skimming through if you haven't done so already:"

    First, the logical argument: I don't see anything wrong with that in the slightest. I am part of a free-thinking scientific humanist group who lives at the edge of understanding in our industry, and I'm not ashamed of that. If people want to disagree with the substance of my arguments, that's perfectly okay, but there is no defence to be found in ad hominem attacks. If someone says that I'm wrong there's a conversation to be had. If someone says that I'm arrogant or caustic or that I hurt their feelings I'm still waiting to hear a good argument - those, to me, sound like the excuses of someone unwilling to excel at what they do or someone trying to stir up resistance rather than meet the challenge of good debate.

    I think that the way we choose to communicate is highly subjective. I probably don't understand what Maya Angelou was trying to say, but maybe she wasn't saying that we need to stop making people feel bad - just that feelings are a powerful way to leave an impression whether they be positive or negative - meaning that we can use positive or negative feelings to change society. We can change things through creating a community of excellence. We can do that by convincing and we can do it by ridiculing. We can get people to change their minds, or we can get people to up their game. For example: a brand new tester will get a lot more patience from me than a vendor, in general. Non-testers will get more patience than existing testers, in general.

    It's not always in our interests to be kind and gentle. We can create change by holding ourselves to a high standard. Those who want to be part of the interesting, challenging, intellectual group of testers (whether we call that CDT or not) will have to work on that level. We can create a safe space to hammer out anti-fragile ideas (like this one!) and know that we're all adults.

    It also matters how the person takes your argument, or chooses to take it. There are people who use "I'm offended" and "you're closed minded" as a way to control conversation because of a lack of good argument and reason. There are people who leverage shouting matches to further their own ends (e.g. snake-oil salesmen). There are people who are genuinely confused about terminology. There are people who simply don't know any better because that's what they've always been taught. We need a mixture of communication methods to deal with all of these people, and each individual that lives in each group, as necessary. But in the end we're all big boys and girls and I will not condescend to someone in the hope of marketing someone over to my way of thinking - I'm just not that sort of person. My outlook is that truth will find its way out if we let it, and that's bigger than any of us. I am very uncomfortable using emotion to manipulate someone - I'd rather argue using reason and evidence than feeling and suggestion. Some people deserve tact and respect in this regard because they show an openness to learn or have "won their place in the world of thinkers", some do not. I do not particularly mind strongly-worded argument, and I have an expectation that most people who prefer mental comfort to progression do not engage with intellectual communities on the subject. Emotionally I prefer satire with a logical basis as a social tool. That is the way I am as a scientist. There may be other ways to achieve good things, and I hope that those people are at work on the problem as well.

    [More...]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I still think that the problem of ridicule, irony and so on is overstated. Those things are valid conversational tools when used appropriately. Either someone is willing to change their beliefs with evidence (scientist, open-minded, skeptic) or they're not (dogmatic thinker). I think that most people with a solid understanding who can express themselves and can handle adult emotions have no need to use ridicule in place of a good argument, because they have a good argument. And if we're going to change anything we're bound to upset a few people... but I'm sure once they've wiped the tears away they'll either think things through and argue like adults, or they're not the sort of person whose mind can be changed. Try challenging someone's sacred beliefs; see how far that gets you, even if they're demonstrably false (I use "sacred" in the Daniel Dennett sense of the word). Even still, it's sometimes important to examine a belief, even a sacred one, and even at the expense of the believer, to further our understanding.

      Perhaps I'm wrong on how to change the world, but it is how I choose to go about it and it seems to work for the scientific community, and has done for a long time. There have been tears and upset, but we've made an amazing amount of progress since the Renaissance. If other approaches work then I'm all for them - and I think any approach has to have the same consideration for the audience and understanding of tact, so it is an important consideration and I'm glad you brought it up.

      I just hope that the original post gets across the idea that whatever way we get people to change their mind on "Best Practice" it's important that we actually do instead of shrouding the issue and permitting dangerous nonsense when we don't have to. I want people to feel challenged when they hear bad ideas - and I have the confidence in people that what they think will not immediately come out of their mouth or through their keyboard without consideration. We are context-driven after all.

      Delete
  8. Yes, your recap is correct. And I realize my comments have somewhat taken us astray from your blog post.

    Let me recap my reasoning though:
    When challenging ideas for the betterment of out craft you might want to consider how your tone and attitude affect the listener. Snarky comments and aggressive attitude might win spectators of the argument over to your side but it will probably not help you win the heart of the person you are talking to. To refrain from obviously insulting or humiliating replies is not the same thing as manipulating emotions. An argument can be like a tennis match where you are trying to score points and get satisfaction from delivering a good smash or it can be a discussion where increased mutual understanding might be the goal.

    The twitter thread I referred to points to another problem. If we in the CDT community frequently use harsh tone and ridicule we might scare people away who otherwise would make the community stronger. As an example, and I may be wrong here, but I as far as I understand it this is one of the reasons why Elisabeth Hendrickson prefer not to be a part of the CDT community.

    I think it is perfectly fine that promoters of factory testing and sellers of certifications frown upon us. That is probably inevitable. But I think it is a bit troublesome if testers are reluctant to approach CDT because of reckless comments on blogs and on twitter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "When challenging ideas for the betterment of out craft you might want to consider how your tone and attitude affect the listener."

      Me? And yes, I mention this above. It depends on the situation, and therefore the listener.


      "I think it is a bit troublesome if testers are reluctant to approach CDT because of reckless comments on blogs and on twitter."

      And just as troublesome if we don't hold ourselves to a high standard when it comes to (say) specificity of language. Here's the thing: CDT is a school that applies scientific and humanist principles to software testing (http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/724, http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/565, http://www.thoughtworks.com/insights/blog/disruptive-testing-part-1-james-bach). I will personally not abandon those for hurt feelings. I don't want there to be any hurt feelings, and it's important to save feelings where we can, but I feel that those principles have more value. That's what I'm trying to say. I am perhaps not a good advert for how fun and open and welcoming CDT people are (and we could both name many people in those circles who are), but I hope to be an advert for how science and humanism can serve testing, and society, to make things better.

      Delete
  9. Sorry, I was not referring to you personally. I should have written "one" instead of "you".

    I thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I hope we can have a chat over a beer or two some day.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete