Re: [wg-review] 4. [GA] Comments

[Derek Conant - DNSGA <dconant@dnsga.org>]

Lighten-up a little.  Okay, a ship can have a motor too!  You appear to be
reading way too much into this and your interpretation and conclusions
concerning my statements are wrong.

I wonder what you do in everyday life that allows you to think that your beliefs
here are correct.  Think about this for a minute.  Do you run a successful
business?  Have you applied what you are preaching here to the real world?  Or,
what?

I run several successful businesses and I have significant experience in
applying the principles I have been describing to this WG.  I know what I have
been trying to explain to this WG works and I have a proven track record that
amounts to getting the job done.

How do you qualify your position that I am am wrong and that your beliefs are
right?

Derek Conant


Joanna Lane wrote:

> I can assure you that I have nothing against you personally, only your
> beliefs.  My purpose is to reveal the subtext, (the underlying message), of
> what you are telling this group to do, by explaining the meaning of
> particular words you have chosen to use, (albeit subconsciously) and in
> particular, for those members whose first language is not English, who may
> be missing the subtleties.
>
> Allow me to note one more:-
>
> Derek Conant wrote:-
> <In the context I used the word *sophisticated*, I would have rather you
> interpreted it mean: wise, cultured or shrewd in human affairs.>
>
> *Shrewd* means acute judgement:  biting, keen: peevish, troublesome, sly,
> malicious, wicked, cunning, vixenish.
> Derived from *shrew*, which has connotations with the devil.
>
> Are these characteristics this WG wants to embrace?
>
> Sincerely,
> Joanna
>
> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Derek Conant wrote:-
> >
> > <My point is that if this WG is not sophisticated enough to understand
> that
> > the
> > GA must have certain representatives who are willing to be accountable for
> > the
> > record and direction of the GA, then a rudder will not help it.>
> >
> > The last thing this WG needs to be is *sophisticated* (adulterated:
> impure:
> > not genuine) derived from *sophism* (a specious fallacy). However, I note
> > that you consider yourself to be a  *sophist* (5th century BC Greece - a
> > capatious or fallacious reasoner) and seek to *sophisticate* this WG, ( to
> > corrupt by mixture.) That says it all.
> >
> > Joanna
>
> --
> 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