* Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010308 23:24]: > a sentence can be used to avoid answering a question. anyone who has > observed a politician in action for 5 minutes will have seen several > examples of this behaviour.
I would like to think that none of the DPL candidates would engage in this behavior. I think we could avoid the whole diatribe against politicians by recognizing that the question is too complex for a single-word to be an adequate answer. By allowing the candidates to fully explore the situation in detail, we can avoid entirely the "broken promise" syndrome. With a paragraph or two, a candidate could describe entirely and succinctly his or her approach to non-free. By asking for a single word, I would argue that you are forcing the candidate to be *more* like traditional politicians because the candidate *cannot* describe his or her position with 'yes' or 'no'. Please reconsider what you are asking; ask for a short response, perhaps in the length of a single paragraph. If the candidate only answers 'yes' or 'no', what does this mean? *That* is the answer that worries me the most. I would rather have a better description of the candidates' plans for (or ambivalence towards) non-free. Cheers! :) -- Earthlink: The #1 provider of unsolicited bulk email to the Internet.
