Kerim Aydin wrote: > Following the link, I agreed, >and was prepared to (trivially) uphold the action, until the text "I support >this" came up. It is clear that this was an attempt to confuse and confound.
Following the links, I got to a link that had "support" in the URI. After that was, apparently, a Flash program. I don't think that running arbitrary programs should be a prerequisite for understanding Agoran communications. I also think that we shouldn't read meanings into URIs per se; their semantics are merely of referring to some remote object. > (as by common >definition in the context of parliamentary procedure, one could not >simultaneously object to and support a measure). In Parliament (the mother of all parliaments, so (like the postage stamps of the same nation) it doesn't bother to explicitly say which one), legislative votes are conducted by the legislators physically walking through lobbies corresponding to their ballot. There's an Aye lobby and a Noe lobby (or, in the Lords, equivalents with other names). It is forbidden to pass through the same lobby twice in the course of one division (vote). But it is *not* forbidden to pass through *both* lobbies during one division. Commentators studying how a legislator votes therefore have to cope with four distinct ballot types: Abstain, Aye, Noe, and Both. The latter type of ballot does occur from time to time, either as an explicit abstention or due to one of the lobbies having been entered in error or under duress. (Carrying an unconscious legislator through a lobby is a normal part of parliamentary procedure, especially after dinner.) -zefram
