Bob Short wrote in a message to Thom Lacosta:

 BS> On 14 Nov 02  05:54:18, Thom Lacosta said the following to Bob
 BS> Short: 

TL> Hmmm, please don't attempt to tell me that my time-contraints mean
TL> nothing.
TL> They are quite real to me.

 BS> I'm sure they do.  But your insistance that this amendment be
 BS> completed within your time frame may cause some who might otherwise
 BS> have greater patience to lose faith.  

Now let's see...I can't remember any statements of insistance...but I could be wrong.

 BS> Regardless of your modicum of
 BS> modesty, your & other's impatience carries weight (like a
 BS> grindstone).

I don't have a lot of modesty, and I resent your cheap shot (like a
grindstone).  From my perspective, my comments about the issue may carry
weight, but they are not like a grindstone....so we don't need to debate
your attempts to color things.


 BS> People see things in black and white.  If you don't approve of
 BS> something, you disapprove of it.  This is why quora were insisted
 BS> upon in our Policy proposal... Look at how P4 treats abstentions. 

Some folks don't see in balck and white....and other folks look at an issue
and attempt to determine the central facts.

 BS> What I'm asking is that enough time be given to untangle the mess
 BS> that is our coordinator structure, and then allow them to sort out
 BS> & vote on this proposal according to it's merits.  This is best
 BS> accomplished bt y refraining from negative commects on how long it
 BS> takes.  :) 

Translated to "Bob wants it his way...and no one can comment on it if
they disagree until Bob gets his way."

Get a life Bob...put a time cap on it...and if it doesn't work, admidt that
it's a dead issue.

thom
baltimoremd{at}baltimoremd.com
http://www.tlchost.net/echolist/ 

--- GEcho 1.20/Pro