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
> > > 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
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.