On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 02:16:13PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:18:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:09:23PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > However, if the point of this vote is "to decide what it is that we > > > want to do", then I think we'd be better served with a rationale for > > > your proposal. > > > > The rationale is so obvious to everybody supporting the resolution and > > so incomprehensible to those opposing it that it is not worth the pain > > to argue about it, IMHO. > > Heh. > > "For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. > For those who do not, none is possible." > > Our first Zen GR. I like it.
I would say it as: "For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none is worthwhile." I think it's not impossible that some (more) of the opponents could be made to understand why people might disagree with them. But I can't imagine any even theoretically possible scenarios where this would change their opinion, so there's no point wasting the effort. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
