[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)

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 

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?

"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."

Reply to: