Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

[Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <sloyment@gmx.net>]

Hi RMS,
On Mittwoch 28 Mai 2003 00:40, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>> A political essay is (typically) written by certain
>>> persons to persuade the public of a certain position. 
>>> If it is modified, it does not do its job.  So it makes
>>> sense, socially, to say that these cannot be modified.
>
>> Then, why are there so many political essays under the
>> GFDL, without invariant sections?
>
> You'd have to ask their authors about that.  I won't criticize
> their decisions, but I don't see a reason to do it.

I think that my question was not clearly phrased. I do not want 
to know why people do something that does not make sense in your 
oppinion.

What I am interested in is how you come to the conclusion that it 
is more difficult (or even impossible) to persuade the public of 
a certain position with a modifyable essay than it would be with 
a non-modifyable one. I do not understand the mechanism that is 
supposed to make the modifyable text less persuasive.

So, can you construct an example?

cu,
Thomas
 }:o{#
--
http://www.bildungsbande.de/~sloyment/
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."