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 Social Contract is hereby repealed."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. firstname.lastname@example.org | He wasn't there again today, roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | I think he's from the CIA.
Description: PGP signature