On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 09:29:57PM -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:56:03AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > It doesn't. Once defeats are dropped, they are *entirely* irrelevant to > > the vote, and it's utterly useless to have terms that refer to them. > However, it may be that Manoj is concerned that once the transitive > defeat is gone the reason for dropping the defeat is gone. No, I think you'll find Manoj is saying that "transitive defeat" doesn't include the word "undropped" so should just refer to the obvious and logical thing, applying any defeat that exists, transitively. Just as a a cleanliness of terminology thing. > If that's the case, perhaps it's worth adding a phrase such as "Once a > defeat is dropped, it remains dropped, even if a transitive defeat which > had caused it to be dropped is later eliminated." We could define "undropped" as "something that has not been dropped", too. We could append a dictionary to define all the words we use, too. We could include a primer on english that begins from hopefully universal concepts like numbers, primes, pi and such, too. Seems like a lot of unnecessary hassle to me. Unwritten tradition is a tried and tested way of smoothing out anomolies. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature