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

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.



Reply to: