Text 3404, 86 rader
Skriven 2004-12-17 09:29:41 av Roy Witt (1:10/22)
   Kommentar till text 3386 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Pee-Four (was: Science 1/2)
===================================
Hello Michiel.

17 Dec 04 11:51, you wrote to me:

 >>  MvdV> There are two ways to accept something in a democracy:
 >>  MvdV> 1) By unanimous decision.
 >> Untrue! Accepted by majority decision. Unanimous means that
 >> everyone has to agree.
 MvdV> And if averone agrees, we have a majority don't we?

When everyone agrees, it's a unanimous decision.

 >>  MvdV> 2) By holding a vote according to a procedure accepted
 >>  MvdV> in advance.

 >> Yes, by the majority.

 MvdV> By the majority as it was when the procedure was accepted.

But there is no procedure set out in P3. There was a brief period in 1986
(six months) where P2 called out a procedure, but you don't want to go
there; as it will defeat what you're claiming about policy being shoved
down your throat. Specifically it says that if your representative isn't
in attendance at one of these policy setting meetings, he loses his vote.

Thus, policy wasn't shoved down your throat as you claim.

 >>  MvdV> At the time P4 was offered for adoption, there was
 >>  MvdV> an accepted procedure for voting on a new policy.
 >>  MvdV> It was the procedure laid down in P3.

 >> However, that procedure may be over-ridden (changed) by a
 >> majority of those present.

 MvdV> No. Even the mighty majority can not change the rules at whim. They
 MvdV> are bound by previous majority decisions.

What previous majority decision was that?

 MvdV> As the procedure for adopting a new policy is laid down on policy,

Where? There was no procedure before that which is found in P4.

 MvdV> changing the procedure amounts to adopting a new policy.

No, adopting the new policy presented to them, was the only procedure to
date.

 MvdV> And so it can not be done at whim by those who happen to be those
 MvdV> that happen to be present.

Ahh, but it can. Since there was no previous procedure in policy, the new
P4 procedure could be used by vote of the majority. That doesn't mean that
the proposed procedure is now law, it's just a guideline to use until the
majority agree on the/a new policy.

 MvdV>  The procedure must be followed. That mean announcements, time
 MvdV> frames, etc, etc.

If there was a procedure to follow, yes. As I've pointed out to you, only
P2 had a procedure and P2 was superceded by P3, which has no such
procedure.

 >>  MvdV> That procedure however was not followed. The procedure that WAS
 >>  MvdV> followed was never voted on.

 >> I'll bet it was.

 MvdV> Be prepared to lose then.

Better look in the mirror when you say that. All of Fidonet's policies
have been posted to the echo and there is no voting procedure, save in
that in the P2 document. P2 was replaced by P3, remember.

 >> Your representative wasn't there to voice his opinion.

 MvdV> Indeed. And that definitely was not according to procedure.

Wrong. He was invited and did attend. He should have stayed, but went home
instead of waiting for the vote to happen. It's not the rest of the
world's fault that he was so stupid and stubborn in his ways. You can
only blame him for shoving P4 down your throat. Everyone else is innocent.


--- Twit(t)-Filter Tossed v2.3 (2000)
 * Origin: Flying \A/ Ranch, Santa Ysabel, CA (1:10/22)