On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:21:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:21:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:21:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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
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 thi
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
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:18:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> 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.
You're not describing a rationale, you're describing an articl
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:21:27PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 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
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 thi
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 incom
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
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 06:18:03PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> 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.
You're not describing a rationale, you're describing an articl
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 incom
12 matches
Mail list logo
