Thomas Lord scripsit:
> You appear to insinuate that my list of proposed alternatives
> is inconsistent with itself -- that I am changing my tune by
> "clearing things up" rather than elaborating various alternatives
> and reasons for them. You are mistaken and, again, insulting
> (for insult's sake).
My error, then. I assumed that your various positions constituted
movement on your part rather than possible alternatives. Also,
I do not intend to insult you, though I do intend to provoke you.
> In my opinion (for reasons elaborated) if the end result
> is ratification of the draft (or anything close to it) then
> that outcome will subtract substantially from the value
> of the work done so far. We can better honor this work
> by treating it in some other way than fighting over its
> ratification as a revised report.
Here's the nub of the disagreement. I think we can vote to
ratify or not ratify without open warfare.
> We are not locked into a ratification thumbs-up-or-down
> just because that is what we first aimed for.
There is no question of lock-in: voting is not mandatory.
Vote yea, or vote nay, or don't vote -- the choice is yours.
> We can simply *use* these materials as best we can,
No one can prevent you from doing that.
--
John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
It's like if you meet an really old, really rich guy covered in liver
spots and breathing with an oxygen tank, and you say, "I want to be
rich, too, so I'm going to start walking with a cane and I'm going to
act crotchety and I'm going to get liver disease. --Wil Shipley
Received on Fri Jun 08 2007 - 18:28:35 UTC