On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Olivier Thereaux < olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > > I don't see, in those references, a direct reply to the points Karl > raised. I think they deserve one. Those who have formed a consensus are > responsible for defending it :-). > > I agree with your first sentence - which is why I pointed, again, to > Karl’s message. > > The second sentence confuses me a little - it looks like we may not quite > have the same definition of consensus. :) > You mean the third sentence. I don't know how to answer this. I only know that failure to answer an objection should not be interpreted as consensus that the objection is invalid. Anyway, do *you* have an opinion on the issue, and/or a proposal to address > Karl’s concerns? > I haven't had time to analyze the issue myself, sorry. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 09:29:59 UTC