On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:33 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <r...@tristatelogic.com> wrote: > >2. OTOH the ultimate result (membership cancellation) may be seen as a > >very heavy punishment. > > Did you have some particular alternative in mind that you wanted to propose?
Yes, the message you're replying to featured the word "suspension". > Sending the miscreant hijacker to bed without supper perhaps? This line of characters is a pathetic statement which carries no additional useful information, please refrain from doing that again. > I do believe that the main idea here was *not* to have the nuclear missles > on a hair-trigger *or* to launch them within a few minutes of the beginning > of a hijacking event Me too, what's the point? > but rather [the main idea here was] to *notify* the party responsible, and > then, if and ONLY IF absolutely NO ACTION is taken to resolve the problem > after some reasonable period of time, then, and only then, it would > *begin* to be a real possibility that sanctions would be applied. This is not stated in the text. I don't care what's the "main idea" was wherever and whenever it was. Either it's in the text or it's absent, and that's it. > Believe me, none of the sponsors or proponents of this proposal wants to > see the nuclear missles launched mistakenly, for example, in response to > a falling meteor or a volcanic eruption somewhere. This line of characters is a pathetic statement which carries no additional useful information, please refrain from doing that again. -- Töma
