Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to > draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the > viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not. > Our fellow readers can judge my assessment's plausibility for themselves.
No, this is simply not the attitudes which underlay my viewpoint. > I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict > majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be > allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their > prerogative. Ah, well, they do have that right. All I'm saying is that when their "interpretation" is judged by the Secretary to be more in the nature of a "repeal", they must do so by a 3:1 vote. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
