From: joe@sfbooks.com 
  
 In article , 
 Jim Riley   wrote: 
  
 > If you have any comments about the charter that he has proposed they 
 > would best be addressed to him.  I think the charter that he proposed 
 > was fine.  You may disagree. 
  
 Didn't you say a ways upthread that you didn't understand one of the 
 charter's, um, *three* sentences?  This is fine for a second-level 
 misc.* group? 
  
 > It would certainly be more fruitful than your continuing to state what 
 > I must be thinking, and masking it under a false politeness. 
  
 I have no clue why you're angry at him for defending my suggestions, 
 except that perhaps the anger in this subthread is an outcome of the 
 displacements necessary to preserve an image of a proponent as 
 responsive, based on the pre-RFD thread in which he genuinely was, 
 even though said proponent has vanished from the face of the earth 
 during the RFD phase, now longer than two weeks. 
  
 It's probably futile by this point to assume that he's actually 
 reading the posts in this thread, but just in case:  People who didn't 
 know about your pre-RFD thread have a right to discuss the proposal 
 too.  In this case, that includes someone who's defending words I 
 wrote, not all of which I'm any longer defending; but the same would 
 apply to any number of people who might say "A-OK!" and tell you to 
 go with the charter you have.  Point is, it was *your choice* to have 
 a long pre-RFD discussion here with the kind of nastiness that's likely 
 to entail; nobody forced you into it.  It's also *your choice* whether 
 to talk to people your RFD brings out of the woodwork, but they are, 
 unlike news.groups regulars, likely to vote on your proposal, so you 
 should consider whether that's wise. 
  
 In the meantime, I do think the rest of us should at least try to 
 be civil to one another.  Even if you, Jim Riley, take it as "false 
 politeness", it sure beats true rudeness. 
  
 Joe Bernstein 
  
 PS for the sake of completeness:  Although unresponsive proponents 
 routinely do tempt me to vote NO, I don't think I've ever actually 
 done so, and I see no reason to start with this proposal.  I'm irked 
 that a post in which I directly answered a request the proponent made 
 has not been acknowledged by said proponent, but such is life; if the 
 proponent is silent as an aspect of playing the vote result game, 
 then it's Gene Nygaard he should be addressing, not me. 
  
 -- 
 Joe Bernstein, writer                                  joe@sfbooks.com 
                   At this address, 
 personal e-mail is welcome, though unsolicited bulk e-mail is unwelcome. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)