> On Jun 7, 2018, at 22:03 , Omo Oaiya <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 7 June 2018 at 17:27, Owen DeLong <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> On Jun 7, 2018, at 08:36 , Omo Oaiya <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> There lies the fallacy in your interpretation and your presumption to speak >> for Ashok. > > I do not speak for Ashok nor did I ever claim that I did. I do refer to > Ashok’s own statements on the matter. > > There lies one of the many fallacies in your accusations. > > > You refer to Ashoks statements and interpret them rather let him clarify, so > you are speaking for him, albeit unsolicited.
I did not interpret them. Sorry if you thought I did. I referred to them and stated my opinion which I believe is supported by his statements. Really, must we engage in such sophistry and meta-discussion rather than addressing the actual substance of the situation? >> Nowhere in our guidelines does it say that the “None of the Above” option >> receiving the plurality of the votes means a win in other than the case of a >> sole candidate. On the other hand, the guidelines clearly describe the >> procedure to take in the case of candidates with the highest votes in a >> category. > > Sigh… Yes, this is the literal, however illogical interpretation which you > have repeatedly put forward. As I said, it is a legitimate literal > interpretation of the guidelines regardless of it’s complete and utter > failure to provide a logical interpretation or conclusion given what the > guidelines do say. > > > It is clear that you are are not reading guideline correctly as every reader > knows that if one removes the “if statement”, the else defaults to “the > candidate with highest win” where definition of candidate is by nomcom It is clear that you are choosing to call my reading of the guidelines incorrect just as I call your reading of them illogical. > > There is the “letter of the law” literal exact word for word meaning, which, > if taken to reductio ad absurdum does, in fact, leave one with your > conclusion. > > Then there is the “spirit of the law” which is the clear and only logical > conclusion one can draw about the intent of the guidelines. > > Ashok’s previous statements on the matter and the posted and announced > election results are consistent with the “spirit of the law” in this case. I > agree that the guidelines should be clarified so that the letter of the law > more clearly states the spirit of the law and lessens the probability of > these wasteful reductio ad absurdum arguments. I do not believe any change to > the result of the election is warranted. > > I speak only for myself here. Obviously others may be of a different opinion. > > More uninformed presumptions. Frameworks for elections have to be in > accordance with both the spirit and letter of the law. What in the above do you call a presumption? > At this point, I will let Dr Tessa decide if he wants to take this further or > not. That would be a refreshing change. Owen
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
