[Nomic02] [P] Omnibus Tune-Up
Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:01:48 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Carl Muckenhoupt wrote:
> I am swayed by Jota's example of a possible future rule that conflicts
> with Rule 50, but is not covered by Move Means Move. However, I am also
> offended by your snarky attitude and alarmed by what seems to be an
> attempt to take my proposal hostage.
I apologise for offense; I was responding to what I ahd perceived to be a
petty move to block the Omnibus proposal on arbitrary grounds.
> I am willing to be reasonable. Jota, I will change my "nay" vote on
> Omnibus Tune-Up [jota] if you apologize. I'm not even asking for you to
> change your vote on Move Means Move; just apologize for the comment
> appended to the nay, and I'll change my vote, and then you can consider
> the proposal on its merits rather than vetoing it out of pique.
Done. My response was intended to make a point (that both proposals
deserved the same consideration, and that it was no better to dismiss the
one on grounds of being "quick and dirty" than to do so to the other), not
to be nasty.
And I fully agree that Move Means Move is of value, so I'll happily change
_/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_
\<-= email@example.com =->/