Re: [ga] Consensus

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear Mr. Gaetano,

Truer words were never spoken.  But a more incorrect conclusion has never has
never been reached.  If we do not get it down to a head counting vote and verify
it how can it be presented.  You cannot go and say "Mr Lynn you are acting
against a GA consensus - Go look at the GA archives and read them."  Position
papers should have a statistically sound head count behind them.

I ask you to review your historic work here and see that this position is wrong.
We must do both; argue and delve and debate and question and postulate and
formulate:  But then we must also conglomerate and educate and reformulate and
provide proof and *DIRECT* policy.

Bottoms up
Eric

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
<snip>

> I argued many times by now that the tendency of solving our problems with
> motions and votes changes the nature of the GA, and will eventually make us
> superfluous.
> In particular if we vote motions *instead* of debating the issues.
>
> Best regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html