On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 03:25:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> And how else would you characterize people who ignore a
> message sent to them thrice that showed exactly what was being
> proposed to be new SC, and then turn around an whine that they did
> not know what the changes proposed were, and that the title
> selected by the secretary was deceiving?
The ballot did indeed contain the full "new" SC, but it did not contain
the text of the old SC (for comparison), nor did it contain a diff. On
top of that, it made a judgement about what type of changes were being
made (that they were editorial), a judgement that seems to have led some
people to not investigate what was being voted upon ("oh, it's
editorial, it won't be important then").
You could explain that as being "apathic". Others explain it as
"receiving incomplete information, leading to some people making an
incorrect decision" -- or, to put it otherwise, "being mislead".
I don't believe this misleading was, in any way, done out of dishonesty;
but that doesn't make it go away.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature