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

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:38:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 04:26:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Please explain what part of the constitution allows for a GR to
> > > amend the social contract.
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:23:43PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > How is this a rebuttal? It's not even on point. If the constitution
> > does in fact not permit amendement of the SC, then the relevant
> > section of the GR is nullified. It doesn't rewrite itself to say "The
> > Social Contract is hereby repealed."
> I don't quite understand your logic here, but I think I understand
> your point.
> Anyways, I wasn't trying for a rebuttal.  I was simply using your post
> as a platform to remind people of this issue.

My post was made solely to point out the illogic of Hamish Moffatt's
equivalence between "throwing out the Social Contract on a whim", which was
what he accused John Goerzen of attempting to do, and the text of John's
General Resolution, which, whatever its faults, cannot reasonably be
construed as a repeal or withdrawl of the Social Contract.

In the GR thread on -devel I posted a quite exhaustive analysis, for which
I was serverely chastised, of the committments made by the Social Contract
and exactly which of those committments are affected by this proposed GR.

G. Branden Robinson            |         Yesterday upon the stair,
Debian GNU/Linux               |         I met a man who wasn't there.
branden@ecn.purdue.edu         |         He wasn't there again today,
roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |         I think he's from the CIA.

Attachment: pgp_SSg6wzgxD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: