Michael Slone wrote:
On 5/13/07, quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If a disagreement occurs, then there was not enough information provided
to allow the public to agree.
What if someone is simply recalcitrant and maintains that Peter
Abelard is always an eligible voter if no list of eligible voters is
provided? Here it seems that the failure of public agreement is
contingent and that it is the intent of the individual rather than the
ambiguity of the description which prevents public agreement.
Then it seems like we need a better word than agreement, or a definition
of public agreement
