Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:09:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think that would be wrong, to imply that a bunch of people
> had signed on to the draft document without asking them
I think a lot of the heatedness in this discussion is a reaction to
implications rather than a reaction to concretely expressed ideas.
I'm not sure how best to address that.
> Raul> I think, however, that much of the disagreeing is a result of Branden's
> Raul> politicing.
> That is an insult. I am rarely swayed by Brandon's posturing,
> grand and picturesque though it often is. I can take umbrage
> by my own self as well.
I apologize for the insult I've delivered to you and Branden -- I
apologize both for any concretely expressed insult and all implied
> I suggest you actually read up on the issue before joining the
> discussion? I'll hold comment until you have caught up and are in a
> better position to know what you are talkijng about.
I'll leave this to the rest of you. I really need to get around to that
revised draft of the voting amendment. Maybe once I've completed that
I'll sit back and try to digest this discussion further.