From: jimrtex@pipeline.com
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:56:50 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:34:32 GMT, Jim Riley
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:25:37 GMT, Gene Nygaard
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:41:23 GMT, Jim Riley
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Huh? I listened to the comments in the pre-discussion. I read
>>>>through the BIPM site and tried to suggest some improved language that
>>>>would not be as SI exclusivist (though I don't think that was ever the
>>>>proponent's intent). The proponent did choose to adopt my language.
>>>
>>>If you agree that the proponent's language is exclusivist, why don't
>>>you see that Bernstein's proposed revision changes this? He wasn't
>>>trying to say the same thing the proponent was.
>>
>>With whom would I be in agreement with?
>
>Does it matter?
Thank you for asking.
>No.
Oh, I see you weren't asking. It must have been rhetorical.
>Me
Well, we are getting somewhere.
>--is that enough?
Probably irrelevant. Let me rephrase your question. "Do you think
that the proponent's language is exclusivist?"
Not particularly. I disagree with Joe Bernstein's premise that this
was the proponent's intent, or that he had ignored comments during the
pre-RFD discussion. If you will review the pre-RFD discussion you
will see where the proponent wrote:
"its history and definition" now clearly includes CGS, MKS, the
redefinition of the inch in terms of SI units, etc., without
bloating the text unnecessarily.
or if you read the rationale, where he wrote:
The proposed charter is meant to be broad enough to cover
discussions about different historic variants of the metric system
(CGM, MKS, various European customary units) as well as
contemporary units that compete with the SI.
You would at least think it was not the intent to excude all but SI.
If on the other hand, if your recollection of a previous discussion is
such that you write:
By this point I have the impression that privileging SI in this
group's newsgroup line and charter is a non-negotiable point for
you. Otherwise you surely would have adopted one of the many
suggestions already made for ways to avoid doing so.
Then you are more likely to believe that the charter excludes all but
SI. Or if you read the above, then read the charter, you may conclude
that it is excluding all but SI. If you had participated in pre-RFD
discussion or read the rationale, you might think differently.
Of course, the real question is how someone who read the charter for
the first time would react. Would they read it and decide that group
was only for SI advocates, and exit the group, or become disruptive?
I don't think that they would.
>I still don't know where you are coming from. Why don't you come
>right out and tell everyone whether or not you think the metric system
>outside of SI *should be* a legitimate topic for discussion in this
>proposed newsgroup.
I agree with what the proponent wrote in the rationale:
The proposed charter is meant to be broad enough to cover
discussions about different historic variants of the metric system
(CGM, MKS, various European customary units) as well as
contemporary units that compete with the SI.
>>Are you referring the the proponent's language during the pre-RFD or
>>as written in the present RFD?
>
>I don't think that Joe Bernstein is going to waste his time correcting
>something that is no longer in issue, and I certainly wouldn't. The
>current one, of course. If you want to offer the revision history as
>evidence of the current meaning, that's fine--but it's up to you to
>spell that out in detail if you do so. The old proposals aren't part
>of this thread.
I you recall, you insinuated that I agreeed that proponent's language
was exclusivist. I agree that the language in the pre-RFD discussion
may have given that impression. A change was made in response to that
concern, so I don't see that Joe Bernstein's proposed language changes
that impression, since a sufficient change had already been made.
--
Jim Riley
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
