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