> > 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. On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:18:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > That's bogus -- I'm not at all opposed to the idea of voting on this. On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:06:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Then I must not be talking about you. There have been other > contributions to this discussion that ridiculed the very concept of > voting on this. Ok, sorry. I thought the presence of my name meant that you were talking about me. > > > 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. > > Why are you rebutting a position I do not hold, and did not even put > forward? I couldn't come up with any other interpretation of your statement which makes as much sense. > > There is no filibuster, except in your imagination. > > You're free to draw your own conclusions from the average length of the > threads on this subject over the past four years. I just did. -- Raul
