On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I > > provided one. Feel free to only include the part after "it is resolved > > that."
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I think you are permitting yourself to be distracted by people who > appear to be opposed to the very idea of voting on this. That's bogus -- I'm not at all opposed to the idea of voting on this. I'm opposed to doing something which doesn't make sense, but I don't think that's equivalent. [Do you?] > The filibuster is not a parliamentary technique countenanced by our > Constitution, and I confess I am not sure why advocates of the GR, and > people who simply want to see the issue voted on are tolerating it. Hogwash. The discussion period hasn't even started. There is no filibuster, except in your imagination. -- Raul
