hello Vladimir.

24 Apr 06 13:42, you wrote to me:

 VD>>> I have explained earlier, that to us it was important not only
 VD>>> to receive the answer yes/is not present, but also to find out a
 VD>>> concrete variant of structure of a new zone.

 MV>> And by doing that you made the outcome subject to interpretation
 MV>> and thereby invalid. You should have asked a simple unambiguos
 MV>> question with only a yes or no answer.

 VD> As you understand, questions were made not by me,

I was using the plural form of "you". That is one of the problems
with English, it uses the same word for the plural and the singular form.

 VD> therefore will have to use that that already is.

It is unusable for a definite conclusion.

 VD>>> All the above-stated variants mean the consent with creation of
 VD>>> a zone

 MV>> No. Answer 1 and 2 are for the creation of a zone with
 MV>> *additional* conditions.

 VD> Again you have not understood - all these variants "for creation",
 VD> also as well as a variant A3.

No, you mistunderstand.

If you create a new zone and keep all the net and node-numbers -as in
choice 1 -  you will go against the wishes of those who voted 2.

If you create a new zone and gradually move the nodes to the new zones with
overlap - as in choice 2 -  you wil go against the wishes of those who
voted 1. 

The wishes of 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, therefore you may not add them up.

 VD>  And to summarize them it is quite logical.

That is just your interpretation of the result of the vote. And that is the
problem: the result is open to interpretation.

 VD>>> You have not understood a principle of this referendum.

 MV>> It is you that fails to understand: that by not asking for one
 MV>> simple yes/no answer you made the referendum fail.

 VD> Probably, I have incorrectly translated or have explained, however our
 VD> sysops understood that is voted.

How do we know that the sysops understood? How do you know? That would
require a new referendum.... ;-)


Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315