Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"
> Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant
> sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not.
> This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
> to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
You have misunderstood. I have already said this twice, so I hope
you'll read those messages.
You are rather impatient with me for not reading a couple of messages
before they arrived, but you could do better. If you work at it, you
could send me a dozen messages about the same point before I see even
one of them. Then you could rebuke me for "ignoring" a dozen
explanations instead of just two. That would surely prove I am
approaching this with ill will.
It was already explained clearly "not long ago", and you have either
forgotten (unlikely), or were unable to understand the explanation
(unlikely), or some third explanation, like you are not being honest
Perhaps I misundertood those messages a few months ago. Or perhaps
you misunderstood them, or misunderstood my reference to them, or you
forgot about them. As human beings, we cannot avoid the risk of
forgetting and misunderstanding. But we can avoid smearing other
people by calling them liars on hardly any grounds.