Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

William Walsh wrote:
> Thursday, August 19, 1999, 1:47:17 PM, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:
> 
> > Just for the record, I'd want MANY (many being probably something between
> > 200-2000, though for others, that might mean not many at all). I'd be happy
> > to start with "few"... Stands a better chance of evolving into "many" than
> > deciding "none".
> 
> And that is EXACTLY what option 2 says.  Option one says to start with
> a few, and no assumption that there will ever be many.  It implies
> that a second round of proposals would be called for to further
> expand, proposals which would then have the strong opposition of those
> who got included in the initial "few" round.
> 
> Option two does start with a few, not many.  It then seeks to further
> expand them, unless there is a reason to stop.

<flame>
Why don't you drop it? Are you trying to pound in the point that there is
confusion in the wording? Apart from that, can you not understand that you
are not the only one that can read English, and therefore has read the
original questions? Would you mind stopping your continuous interpretation
of what everyone else is saying, in particular myself? I really don't need
your translation of my text and answers.
I'd hate it if you had to count a vote:
"Hmmm, 25 votes yes, and 15 votes no to my proposal, but in fact the 15 no
votes in reality were trying to say yes. I hereby announce that my motion
passes with 40 yes votes".
</flame>

Yours, John Broomfield.