Re: ISSUES 90, 91, 93, 96, 97 -- if you DON'T support these change proposals, support zero-change instead

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I was hoping to get responses such as those you've asked for.
>>>
>>> I can't believe that people dislike ALL of the change proposals,
>>> equally. I think that the fact that the co-chairs grouped these from
>>> the beginning has left them grouped, regardless of what people think
>>> about the individual items.
>>>
>>> If some have less resistance than others, then I can figure out if I
>>> need to strengthen my change proposals more, or consider dropping a
>>> couple in order to focus on the rest.
>>>
>>> With them grouped, I'm stymied as to action, because these items are
>>> not the same. They are very different constructs. I don't understand
>>> the same reasons being applied to ALL the items.
>>
>> The same reasons are not applied to all of them; I have no idea why
>> you keep asserting this.
>>
>> The counter-proposals clearly state the reasoning behind each
>> individual element, and why they're valuable.  There is then,
>> additionally, a shared section listing some reasoning that is common
>> to all the elements.
>
> I would have believed that more, if the counter-proposals weren't all
> lumped together.

I made a statement of fact.  There is nothing to believe or
disbelieve.  You can just look at the page and clearly see the
individual elements being given individual justifications, which
invalidates your statement that "the same reasons [are] being applied
to ALL the items", and weakens your claim of prejudice-by-grouping.

The number of wiki pages spent to argue a position has no bearing on
the strength of the argument or the validity of the position.

~TJ

Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 16:02:16 UTC