From: jimrtex@pipeline.com 
  
 On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein 
  wrote: 
  
 >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, 
  
 I have not the faintest clue whether Mr.Nygaard preferred the previous 
 version that said the group was about SI; the version that is 
 currently under discussion; or your proposed changes.  I really don't. 
  
 If he was defending your assertion that the 3rd sentence of the 
 charter doesn't make sense by making no comment, I really think he 
 should comment directly on the RFD instead of 4th hand. 
  
 Sometimes when people are commenting on the name of the group, or its 
 charter, they do it from the perspective of knowing what they want it 
 to mean.  They then try to determine whether the charter or name 
 suggests what they want it to mean. 
  
 But the test that should be made, is whether someone who reads the 
 name or reads the charter fresh will understand what it means. 
  
 Let's say that the charter of a group is to discuss what 2+2 is.  The 
 charter says, "To discuss the value 4".  The person who knows why the 
 charter was being written, may nod their head that the charter is 
 completely understandable.  But someone who reads "To discuss the 
 value 4" will not know that the purpose of the group is to discuss 
 what 2+2 is. 
  
 In this case, your language reads (paraphrased), "To discuss the 
 metric system and metric units".   The latter suggests that discussion 
 of the meter will be on topic.  But then one has to wonder why you 
 have to say metric units when the metric system includes the units. 
 If you had to be present during the writing of the charter to 
 understand its meaning, it is not a very good charter.  Recall when I 
 asked about the ... and metric units, you wrote: 
  
   I remember having a specific reason for writing that, but I don't 
   now remember what it was, and I lack time to review the RFD and 
   pre-RFD threads. 
  
  
 I don't know whether Mr.Nygaard believes that the qualification of 
 metric system also qualifies metric units.  That is, since the metric 
 system that will be discussed is SI, then the metric units that will 
 be discussed are those that are not SI. 
  
 If the discussion of non-SI metric units will be a somewhat minor 
 subtopic, then it is better to cut the charter off after system.  And 
 then under a list of potential subtopics, address the issue of other 
 metric units.  If you try to apply a different qualifier to units than 
 is applied to system it will make it harder to understand and elevates 
 a minor subtopic to equality with the main topic. 
  
  
 >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, 
  
 I agree.  I think it would be more fruitful for Mr.Nygaard to discuss 
 the proposal put forward by the actual proponent, rather than telling 
 me that what I think (or so it seems to him) and that the meaning of 
 the additional language is needed - even though you initially could 
 not recall your purpose in adding it. 
  
  
 > 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. 
  
 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. 
  
 I did not attack your proposed changes.  I did question your 
 characterization of the proponent's intent - not because I had 
 suggested the language, but because I knew why it was written in the 
 way it was, and that the proponent had accepted the changes precisely 
 to remove the SI-excluwive language.  I said that I didn't understand 
 the reason for the "and units". 
  
  
 >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. 
  
 Please see  
  
 Note that it includes attributions for: 
  
    Bernstein's proposed revisions. 
  
    Riley's saying that he doesn't understand "and metric units" 
  
    Pikul's explanation. 
  
    Riley's argument that he didn't see how Bernstein's language 
    clarified the purpose of the "and metric units" language. 
  
 9 day's later, Nygaard "corrects" me by saying: 
  
    That quote is from Bernstein's proposed alternative, not from the 
    charter as proposed.  So if you think that is correct, you probably 
    think the charter is off-base. 
  
 -- 
 Jim Riley 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)