Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:13:21 +0200, Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther
>> <email@example.com> said:
>> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
>> >> <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> >> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> >> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
>> >> >> super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the
>> >> >> terms be used interchangeably?
>> > Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can
>> > avoid it.
>> >> > Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there
>> >> > is a distinction. Also, a "3:1 majority" is a contradiction; a
>> >> > majority is defined as "The greater number or part; a number
>> >> > more than half of the total.". If we require more than
>> >> > 50%+1, we no longer
>> >> Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater
>> >> than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a
>> >> tad bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority.
>> > As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is
>> > a super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a
>> > 60% majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly
>> > more than a majority.
>> Then your understanding is incorrect.
> Sure, sure whatever.
>> ... skipped lot of good english definitions ...>
>> > I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by
>> > 3:1 super majorities.
>> You probably need to file another GR to change all such references
>> in the constitutions, since there are several references to
>> majority (section 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 6.1.4, and I guess A.6.3.2,3 need
>> be clarified too).
> Yep, that would be a problem, but anyway, to avoid confusion, just
> use one word for the same thing in the whole text. Since the rest of
> the constituion uses 3:1 majority, then let's use that everywhere,
> instead of introducing the super-majority term.
Words are not divorced of their meanings, and using two terms,
both of which are applicable, ought to be acceptable.
> I don't really care, but at least to avoid confusion, use one word
> only, and not two different to say the same thing, in order to avoid
> doubt and confusion.
I am afraid that if you want to outlaw synonyms, you certainly
may, but it goes far beyond the scope of the current set of
proposals, and I certainly am not authorized to go about amending
random bits of the constitution simply because synonyms may cause
My suggestion would be, in case of confusion, to look it up in
a dictionary; there are some fairly good ones online now.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/99/S0899900.html, for example.
Till then we shall be content to admit openly, what you (religionists)
whisper under your breath or hide in technical jargon, that the
ancient secret is a secret still; that man knows nothing of the
Infinite and Absolute; and that, knowing nothing, he had better not be
dogmatic about his ignorance. And, meanwhile, we will endeavour to be
as charitable as possible, and whilst you trumpet forth officially
your contempt for our skepticism, we will at least try to believe that
you are imposed upon by your own bluster. Leslie Stephen, "An
agnostic's Apology", Fortnightly Review, 1876
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C