Hi Michiel!

Sunday April 23 2006, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Vladimir Donskoy:

 VD>> I have explained earlier, that to us it was important not only to
 VD>> 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 and
 MV> thereby invalid. You should have asked a simple unambiguos question with
 MV> only a yes or no answer.

As you understand, questions were made not by me, therefore will have to
use that that already is.

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

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

Again you have not understood - all these variants "for
creation", also as well as a variant A3. And to summarize them it is
quite logical.

 VD>> and as to choose for the answer it was possible only one - voices
 VD>> with similar subjects are summarized.

 VD>> So A1+A2+A3 = 354 votes and "yes" for creation zone.

 MV> No, only answer 3 is for the creation of a zone without additional
 MV> conditions. Only 146 votes for that one.

It not conditions and variants of structure.

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

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

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

Regards, Vladimir Donskoy

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20060326