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

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

> > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:08:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > > Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I 
> > > > provided one. Feel free to only include the part after "it is resolved 
> > > > that."

> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > I think you are permitting yourself to be distracted by people who
> > > appear to be opposed to the very idea of voting on this.

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:18:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That's bogus -- I'm not at all opposed to the idea of voting on this.

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:06:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Then I must not be talking about you.  There have been other
> contributions to this discussion that ridiculed the very concept of
> voting on this.

Ok, sorry.  I thought the presence of my name meant that you were talking
about me.

> > > The filibuster is not a parliamentary technique countenanced by our
> > > Constitution, and I confess I am not sure why advocates of the GR, and
> > > people who simply want to see the issue voted on are tolerating it.
> > 
> > Hogwash.
> > 
> > The discussion period hasn't even started.
> Why are you rebutting a position I do not hold, and did not even put
> forward?

I couldn't come up with any other interpretation of your statement which
makes as much sense.

> > There is no filibuster, except in your imagination.
> You're free to draw your own conclusions from the average length of the
> threads on this subject over the past four years.

I just did.


Reply to: