Re: Revoking non-free less violently
> > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:04:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > But what problem(s) are you solving, and how is this a better solution
> > > > than any of the other proposals?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:57:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > What's your definition of a "problem"?
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:24:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > In this context, I imagine it's two or more ideals or goals which are
> > apparently in conflict because people don't bother to examine the nature
> > of the goals. [So maybe "dilemma" would be a better word than "problem".]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:24:58AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> So, it is your contention that the only reason that a dispute over
> removing non-free exists is because some people are too intellectually
> lazy to understand the purposes of the Project?
> Is there an officially sanctioned exegesis of the Social Contract that I
> can consult so that I may practice more correct thinking? Or will
> consultation and prayer with the rabbinical council that opposes the GR