On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:37, prabir <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kenneth's 3 points are common to Nagarjuna's 7 points and we have an
> agreement on that.
Gee... How did you conclude that ? No, Kenneth's 3 points are NOT
common to Nagarjuna's 7 points and we *dont* have an agreement on that
because despite numerous attempts at getting the OP to answer them, he
has still not done so.
> I completely agree that If we want the patents or any other issue to
> be included, we have to give arguments: it is our responsibility,
> even if it means rehashing earlier positions!
As i said earlier, I prefer getting things done and moving on and out
of respect for others time and mine as well, I wont waste it in futile
list wars.
> Conversely, if you
^^^^^
> disagree with it, we have say why, even rehashing old arguments.
^^^^^
You != we the fosscomm group. There is a distinction. For me, the
converse does not hold true as neither did i propose multiple CMP's
nor am i in favor of pushing my POV's down the fosscomm coalition's
pipeline. Ideally, a CMP == Common Minimum Program, which results in a
broad national coalition. If one interprets the CMP as a Common
Maximum Program it ceases to be a broad coalition and the second CMP
proposal stands in favor of successfully keeping a large number of
organisations and companies and individuals out. Sad.
--
vid
http://vid.svaksha.com ||
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
