Re: [wg-review] IDNH/O versus @LARGE

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Oh contrary, nothing within this subject matter is inevitable.  All of us a capable of taking statements
out of context or "shaping" them to meet our personal agendas. That is why, while it may be irritating, I
rewrite statements such as yours and try to clearly restate the intent so that absurdities in adaptation
can be easily identified. Also this almost Socratic method helps to clarify those things which appear to
be obvious to one but not another, and here is where I disagree with your "inevitable" approach.
It is only inevitable if we make it so, by reiterating it until there can be no confusion as to what we
intend.

Sincerely,

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> 1/29/01 2:51:52 PM, Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM> wrote:
>
> >Other than the unnecessary personal dig.
>
> It was not a personal "dig", she wrote it.
>
> >I find this statement to be correct and necessary to be
> >said.  Based upon my memory and a short review, someone-somewhere-somehow slipped these two
> >together.  Within this working group they were not meant that way.
>
> That's exactly what I'm pointing out.
>
> >As for the protocol:  It should be insured that constituency groups not be diluted by forcing them
> >into the at large.  However it would appear that within the At Large, "groups" should be forming that
> >can organize and build coalitions capable of affecting BoDs.
>
> This is inevitable.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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