Re: Anton's amendment
"Wesley J. Landaker" <wjl@icecavern.net> writes:
> Thomas, I have honestly been trying to do this, but for whatever reason,
> it's not being communicated well. Partly, this may be because I'm been
> trying not to arguing a specific stance, but that other stances should be
> considered valid interpretations, not changes to a foundation document.
Those other stances need to be spelled out, unless you are saying that
*every* other stance *anyone* could have must be a valid
interpretation, no matter what it is. That seems extremely unlikely.
So instead, you are (understandably) making a rather vague statement,
but this is entirely unable to be discussed, because it cannot be
nailed down.
Since the amendment, as it was actually proposed, did not in fact make
*any* stance of interpretation, but instead simply declared a
conclusion, we are stuck.
Reply to: