"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas, I have honestly been trying to do this, but for whatever reason, > it's not being communicated well. Partly, this may be because I'm been > trying not to arguing a specific stance, but that other stances should be > considered valid interpretations, not changes to a foundation document.
Those other stances need to be spelled out, unless you are saying that *every* other stance *anyone* could have must be a valid interpretation, no matter what it is. That seems extremely unlikely. So instead, you are (understandably) making a rather vague statement, but this is entirely unable to be discussed, because it cannot be nailed down. Since the amendment, as it was actually proposed, did not in fact make *any* stance of interpretation, but instead simply declared a conclusion, we are stuck. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
