Being an outside observer (not really knowing anything), it seems to me that you are communicating over each other's heads.
I suggest that you start from scratch, blank paper, forward the propsal in shortlist form and why this proposal is important, and Peter outline the objections, including his fear of the net effects, and perhaps conditions required before he can accept (or at least remove the veto) the proposal. Is this worth 2cent? I doubt it. Niclas On Friday 14 March 2003 17:34, Leo Simons wrote: > Peter Donald wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 01:57, Leo Simons wrote: > >>could you either retract your vetoes issued as part of this thread or > >>reply to my last e-mail concerning those vetoes (or do both, of course)? > > > > Whats to reply. > > The point is that you've issued some vetoes which I and others believe > to be applying to something not subject to a veto. We need to agree on > this point: letting vetoes lying around is not good. So a good reply > would be to conceed that the vetoes are inappropriate, or provide > arguments that will convince us that they are. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
