On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:43:56AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> I don't want to debate whether there is a "functional difference"
> because I think I will be accused of more "esoteric math[s]" talk and
> it's not relevant. The phrasing in question here seems accurate and
> clear enough that you can understand it in its present form. I don't
> see why having studied for maths degrees should disqualify my request
> for accuracy.
I am able to understand it, yes; I also have a strong foundation in doing
formal mathematics, though I haven't used such (in any practical sense) for
some while. The phrasing is accurate, and concise - and I *did not advocate
changing it*.
What I advocated was considering the possibility of adding an explanatory
footnote for those who do *not* have such training, outside the formal text
in question (potentially in another document entirely, probably one without
the strict controls necessary for revising the Constitution).
> At least I am a user of the affected package, which should count for
> something.
As am I. I fail to see your point; were you trying to imply that only a
DD should have an opinion? Perhaps you're right; unfortunately for the
assertion that would imply (no DDs have an issue with it), I am one. Which,
presumably, means that I count for precisely as much as you do, on the
matter.
Unless you meant something else, in which case I would ask that you
clarify what you did mean.
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgphiXGbGd8Ts.pgp
Description: PGP signature