On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 18:44 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Charles Reiss wrote: > >> 6397 D 0 2.0 Pavitra Support Diplomacy > > AGAINST (should not be disinterested) > Um, what? "Should be disinterested" is a sensible enough reason to vote > AGAINST a proposal, because the author of a passing interested proposal > gets paid for it, but... /what/? Is there something morally > objectionable about acts of charity?
Being disinterested sort-of implies that people don't need to pay attention to it. -- ais523
