On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 08:50:55AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > If the US were to adopt Debian's provisions, is there some reason to think > > the Bible couldn't be a Foundational Document for the US? > That's so nonsensical I can't begin to formulate an answer. > Having the US adopt the Bible as a foundation document would be something > like having Debian adopt the Microsoft EULA as a foundation document. Well, speaking of nonsensical... Do you really think "the Bible"::USA as "Microsoft's EULA"::Debian? > > Which means that the person claiming there is a rule has to meet the > > burden of proof. Seriously, I'm happy to discuss this; but if you want > > proof that there's no such rule, you're asking for the impossible, > > even if it's the case. > Let's settle for "if we are going to disregard the social contract, > what is our basis for doing so, why is that ok, and how is that not > setting aside some part of the social contract for something else?" "If we're going to disregard Micorosoft's EULA, what is our basis for doing so?" We don't need a basis -- we need a basis to *regard* it. One possibility is that it's constitutionally required. Another possibility is that it's a good idea. These have different consequences depending on which is the case. Feh, whatever. If you're not interested in considering my view, I'll stop wasting our time. Regards, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: Digital signature