Re: resounding nothingness

2004-02-16 Thread Raul Miller
> > The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to > > introduce an amendment. On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:05:11AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: > Really? I count 6 seconds of Andrew Suffield's proposal of Jan 10 > 22:01: I was talking about my proposals, not Andrew's. --

Re: resounding nothingness

2004-02-16 Thread Scott James Remnant
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 03:52, Raul Miller wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your, > > and others', proposals? > > The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to > introduce

Re: resounding nothingness

2004-02-16 Thread Raul Miller
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your, > and others', proposals? The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to introduce an amendment. Also, while I personally think my post recent

Re: resounding nothingness

2004-02-16 Thread John Goerzen
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:39:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue. > > If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even > criticising, I guess I should just drop it? > > [And, if no one cares to resurrect an earlier version,

Re: resounding nothingness

2004-02-16 Thread Raul Miller
> > The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to > > introduce an amendment. On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:05:11AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: > Really? I count 6 seconds of Andrew Suffield's proposal of Jan 10 > 22:01: I was talking about my proposals, not Andrew's. --

resounding nothingness

2004-02-16 Thread Raul Miller
I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue. If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even criticising, I guess I should just drop it? [And, if no one cares to resurrect an earlier version, ...] Thanks, -- Raul

Re: resounding nothingness

2004-02-16 Thread Scott James Remnant
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 03:52, Raul Miller wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your, > > and others', proposals? > > The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to > introduce

Re: resounding nothingness

2004-02-16 Thread Raul Miller
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:31:36PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > I am confused. Did not several people second earlier versions of your, > and others', proposals? The most any proposal got was 4 seconds. Five would be needed to introduce an amendment. Also, while I personally think my post recent

Re: resounding nothingness

2004-02-16 Thread John Goerzen
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:39:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue. > > If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even > criticising, I guess I should just drop it? > > [And, if no one cares to resurrect an earlier version,

resounding nothingness

2004-02-16 Thread Raul Miller
I'm not sure how to proceed on this non-free issue. If no one thinks my most recent proposal is worth sponsoring, nor even criticising, I guess I should just drop it? [And, if no one cares to resurrect an earlier version, ...] Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]