On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 09:12:27PM +0100, Matthew Woodcraft wrote: > Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > The fact that there is a need for a rebuttal, in the first place, is > > already a sign that something is very wrong. > > I don't argue with that. But when we explain why the GFDL is bad, we > shouldn't exaggerate problems, any more than we should try to play them > down. [...] > In that case, the 'rebuttal' can just be a brief note explaining that > the invariant section was the personal opinion of someone who no longer > works on the document.
I don't think I'm exaggerating any problems. Indeed, it is possible to write a short rebuttal without using the option of an invariant section. However, human nature being what it is, I expect most of these rebuttals will be more than just a few phrases, and will be invariant. Of course I'm not saying that this is what always will happen, but it's a possibility, and (I dare say) not an unlikely one. Anyway, this is getting quite off-topic. Please reply off-list, if at all. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
