There is no "sleight of hand" going on here. Issuing a document that states that "Social Contract version 1 is hereby declared outdated and replaced by this newer text" accomplishes the exact same thing as modifying it. I am not claiming that we must destroy all evidence that there was ever a difference! I don't care if the website lists it as the "amended social contract" or whatnot. I am not trying to hide things from users. You are trying to read that position into my statements, but the facts are, I support no such thing.
-- John Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Santiago> What exactly prevents an existing document to be re-issued? > > Nothing, as long as the name is changed. IMHO if you reissue > something, as opposed to mohifying it (espescially because you do not > have the authority to modify a document), it should not a) replace > the original document, and b) serve as a replacement for the original > document, or else it would just be a slieght of hand designed to work > around a lack of authority to modify it in the first place. > > manoj > -- > But I always fired into the nearest hill or, failing that, into > blackness. I meant no harm; I just liked the explosions. And I was > careful never to kill more than I could eat. Raoul Duke > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> > 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E > 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com #include <std_disclaimer.h> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
