>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> You typically order "doing nothing" over just about anything
Branden> I've ever proposed or done, but I'm getting used to it.
I did not mean to be insulting. But yes, that has,
unfortunately, been true of most things in the past (apart from the
DMUP effort, which died a quick death.
Branden> Of course not. To admit that the issues are distinct is to
Branden> admit that you're engaging in a practice common among, for
Branden> instance, U.S. Congressional legislators: if you've got
Branden> something that you or some Special Interest Group really
Branden> wants passed but which you fear may not stand on its own
Branden> merits, you tack it on as a rider to some other
Branden> uncontroversial piece of legislation.
May I remind you my proposal on -project preceded yours, and
you added a rider on my proposal exactly as you say above? I at least
offered my proposal as an alternative to yours, not as an added on
rider.
On this at least I say you are absolutely wrong. If anyone can
be accused of adding riders to a totally different proposal, it must
be you, for your so called amendment to my proposal in -project.
Branden> The notion of "Foundational Documents" is completely new
Branden> stuff without any hint of precedent within the Constitution.
Ah yes. So it is. Are you against it for its novelty?
Branden> Regardless of its merits (or lack thereof), it is in no
Branden> sense conceptually related to the following diff:
Branden> - issue
Branden> + issue, modify, and withdraw
There is a difference, but not to one who can only see iddues
in terms of extremes. My stance is modify with caution. And this
caution, embodies by the requirement for a supermajority, is not
explicit in the naivbely simplistic ``cenceptual'' outline above. And
the devil is in the details.
Branden> If you're so certain that the Foundational Documents portion
Branden> of your resolution will pass, then you have no reason to
Branden> object to ballots for it and my resolution to be issued
Branden> simultaneously. If the Project Secretary and you agree, and
Branden> you amend your proposal to omit the part already included in
Branden> my proposal, perhaps we have a solution.
You are the one blithely calling my proposal a superset. In
which case, you should have no objections to letting my proposal be
tried, and, it it passes, it fully subsumes yours, right?
Our stances on this are different. Almost diametrically
opposing, as people havce pointed out. Mere polemics can't hide that
fact.
manoj
irritated
--
I always say beauty is only sin deep. Saki, "Reginald's Choir Treat"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
