Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My complaint comes from the fact that there was absolutely no
> discussion about this new vote prior to it being proposed.
If that were true, I might sympathize. Since it's not true, I have to
wonder just what you're trying to pull here. (To be kind, I'll assume
that this is just hyperbole.)
Pretty hard to get any seconds without a discussion.... :-)
> We need to sort this out, just not this way.
Why not this way? Granted, it's not the way I would have picked when
we were starting out, but at this point, we've already made so many
missteps that this looks like the simplest and easiest way to get to a
reasonable point that makes most people happy. Whether swap or
no-swap wins. The only thing that could present an obstacle to a
happy resolution is if "further discussion" wins. We have been
discussing this for YEARS! It's time to stop playing the debate
game. We have more important matters to worry about.
In fact, while my current vote lists "further discussion" as choice
three, I think I may have to change that, and leave it blank
(completely unacceptable).
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
