> Your example is flawed because: > > Multi-Partner has nothing to do with sexuality unless you want to make the > argument that your belief is that a relationship should be between one > person and another and in this argument a man and a woman which has > literally nothing to do with the word multi or partner in a technical > context. > > Gay couples often call their significant other their partner. It's not uncommon, at least where I'm from. Partner can be a very politically charged word because of this, especially outside of a strictly business sense, e.g. LLP. Partner doesn't really have a "technical" meaning.
Does your insistence that my RPC isn't correct an attack on my RPC? > > In short the fundamental outcome is that the community wouldn't let it get > that far. We have 20 years of results to show in that one. > So, you're saying we don't need a CoC because in 20 years you've never had an issue? That doesn't seem like a good response.
