On 21 January 2012 22:57, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David, I'm a bit surprised that you think a policy that includes the
language Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference
venue or talks. is a good idea. I think it'd be difficult to have a
discussion about
On 01/21/2012 11:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy
[…] regardless of […] preferred Creative Commons license […]
I use the GNU General Public License v3 / GNU Free Documentation License
v1.3, as commanded by Saint IGNUcius, you insensitive clod!
2012/1/22 MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com:
Strainu wrote:
Has anyone made an analysis on what the license change would mean to
Wikipedia? Looking at the ODbL FAQ on the OSM website, it seems that
using maps would not be affected. But what about using data from OSM
in our articles? Also, my
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 05:54:34PM -0500, MZMcBride wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
If a policy makes good sense, we clearly need it, and feedback about the
text is mostly positive, then we should adopt it. Rejecting a good idea
because of process wonkery is stupid.
Really? Does this apply
Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
I'm worried that we may be getting
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm worried that we may be getting in trouble.
I don't know about US laws, but are charitable organizations allowed
to meddle in political lobbying?
I'd appreciate if more knowledgeable people could give us some
Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list
are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuable contribution to
the list but would rather not subscribe to it, please send an email to
foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org and we will forward your post
to the list. Please
Wouldn't it be better if you just moderate non-member messages, so there is no
confusion where they need to post and they won't get accidentally rejected?
Techman224
On 2012-01-22, at 12:43 PM, keisuke koyanagi wrote:
Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list
are
Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on direct
lobbying of related issues. Basically that means they can say this is good
and that's good - but they can't actually endorse a party or individual. They
can educate on that person - so and so wants to do this - but
On 22 January 2012 19:24, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on direct
lobbying of related issues. Basically that means they can say this is good
and that's good - but they can't actually endorse a party or
People can subscribe and set their preferences to not receive any emails,
then they can email the list with no problems.
On Jan 22, 2012 6:44 PM, keisuke koyanagi koyakeiaa...@gmail.com wrote:
Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list
are now automatically rejected. If
On 22 January 2012 18:00, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm worried that we may be getting in trouble.
I don't know about US laws, but are charitable organizations allowed
to meddle in political lobbying?
I'd
You trust GOOGLE's interests to align sufficiently with ours, to the
extent that you're willing to cede government affairs to them?
pb
On Sun Jan 22 12:48:50 2012, geni wrote:
On 22 January 2012 18:00, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez
Actually, they're pretty similar. Don't forget that Google and Sergey
Brin's foundation are major income sources.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
You trust GOOGLE's interests to align sufficiently with ours, to the
extent that you're willing to
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
You trust GOOGLE's interests to align sufficiently with ours, to the
extent that you're willing to cede government affairs to them?
Yes.
Why won't their interest align on the same side as everyone else ? The
Hello,
Wikimedia Nederland is reporting monthly on its activities. We just
completed December, and for convenience I send you here the link to
the whole list of reports.
Kind regards
Ziko van Dijk
president
--
---
Vereniging Wikimedia
Google (and facebook and twitter etc) are large corporate organizations
with profits heavily on their mind (by law, they are responsible to their
shareholders). While they clearly have good reasons to be opposed to SOPA
and PIPA there reasons are not exactly the same as ours and in my opinion
we
Hello All,
I just filed a feature request which I think is of strategic interest
to Wikipedia:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33889
Bug 33889 - Request to add a comment section under every Wikipedia article
By providing a comment section under every Wikipedia article, we can
Not least our public life-blood comes from the perception we're
independent, non-profit motivated, charitable, public welfare motivated,
grass-roots - not a Silicon Valley giant. We have spent years explaining
we have just 75 staff and volunteer writers. We seek small donations to be
aligned to
On 22 January 2012 21:43, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello All,
I just filed a feature request which I think is of strategic interest
to Wikipedia:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33889
Bug 33889 - Request to add a comment section under every Wikipedia article
The Article Feedback Tool v.5 and the current Talk tab are for
discussing *the editing of the current article*, not for discussing
*the topic represented by the current article*, although I think these
two goals can coexist in a single discussion area.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Tom Morris
For example, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat , we can have a
single discussion area that can both talk about the editing of this
article and issues related to cats (e.g. petting them).
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
The Article Feedback Tool v.5 and
On 22 January 2012 21:43, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello All,
I just filed a feature request which I think is of strategic interest
to Wikipedia:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33889
Similar to the Opinions tab on Wikinews. Could be interesting. Would
need to be
On 22 January 2012 22:08, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat , we can have a
single discussion area that can both talk about the editing of this
article and issues related to cats (e.g. petting them).
Well, English Wikinews has what you are
There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for
discussing the article, though, rather than its topic.
While we are more than a conventional encyclopedia, we are still an
encyclopaedia and I don't think we should add job and product adverts to
our articles.
If people want
As Facebook already takes our articles for the same general chitchat
reasons, it sounds like we could add a Facebook link to every article to
get the same result.
Cheers,
Fae
--
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
___
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On 22 January 2012 22:08, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat , we can have a
single discussion area that can both talk about the editing of this
article and issues related
geni writes:
What is highly questionable is if it a remotely worthwhile use of
money. If Google's lobbyists can't impact SOPA and the like what makes
the foundation think our can?
geni, as you may know, I spent more than a decade in Washington
working on public-policy issues for non-profits
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for
discussing the article, though, rather than its topic.
Besides this, another disadvantage of the current Talk tab is it
uses the wiki way to talk,
On 22 January 2012 22:26, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
At this point, I'll understand if you hit me with a [citation needed]
here, and I confess that what I'm telling probably is best classified
as original research. But don't take my word for it -- talk to other
NGOs that work in the
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for
discussing the article, though, rather than its topic.
Besides this,
On 22 January 2012 22:31, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
Besides this, another disadvantage of the current Talk tab is it
uses the wiki way to talk, not the typical comment section we see
under every YouTube video, Flickr image, Facebook status update, etc.
The wiki way to talk may be
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do
lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they
wouldn't be doing it.
Not only that, but of course people who eat food and drink
Hi Ziko,
I appreciate your email, but it seems you forgot the link. Also, I
personally strongly prefer it if you could include the actual reports in
the email. It makes searching finding much easier, as well as offline
reading.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia 22 de Janeiro de 2012 22:32, Ziko
On 22 January 2012 22:54, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do
lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they
wouldn't be doing
On 22 January 2012 22:56, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Ziko,
I appreciate your email, but it seems you forgot the link. Also, I
personally strongly prefer it if you could include the actual reports in
the email. It makes searching finding much easier, as well as offline
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming
from. But you made a conflicting point yourself
text omitted
But as I saw it, we already
made our voice heard? When we blacked out Wikipedia for
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2012 22:54, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
So this can mean very much for scientific research. For example,
imagine if there are two mathematicians in the world interested in the
same, very deep
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't
worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more
than just monetary cost, of course.)
Ah, then the proper experiment would have
On 22 January 2012 23:09, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't
worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more
than just
On 22 January 2012 23:08, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
They can do what academics have always done: read each other's
published works and go to conferences. If a subject is so obscure that
only a handle of researchers are involved in it, then it probably
isn't sufficiently notable to
This comment section idea can be an experiment. If it does more good
than bad, we can keep it. Otherwise we can remove it. It's just as
simple as enabling/disabling a MediaWiki extension.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2012 23:08, Yao
On 22 January 2012 23:25, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
This comment section idea can be an experiment. If it does more good
than bad, we can keep it. Otherwise we can remove it. It's just as
simple as enabling/disabling a MediaWiki extension.
How would you measure how much good and
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2012 23:25, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
This comment section idea can be an experiment. If it does more good
than bad, we can keep it. Otherwise we can remove it. It's just as
simple as
Mike, I noticed you have been equating getting our voice heard with
general lobbying. I am curious, mostly because I don't know what it
entails.
Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered,
professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the
client
On 22 January 2012 23:31, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
The wiki way to talk may be favored by the Wikipedia community, but is
really weird to the general public.
The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for
Ah - things happen. Thanks for the note.
Ziko
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Nederland
This is the chapter report for Wikimedia Nederland for December 2011.
== Cultural heritage ==
The Tropical Museum has put out a call for volunteers and will also be
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Svip svi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2012 23:31, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
The wiki way to talk may be favored by the Wikipedia community, but is
really weird to the general public.
The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very
On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip svi...@gmail.com wrote:
The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so
on.
English Wikinews calls
The simple option that will just blow all this talk fo lobbying away,
is to migrate outside US jurisdiction entirely. It does entail some
costs, and may well not be optimal, on many fronts.
A medium option is to do a plan on the lines of the actions that
Google has already put into force, of
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming
from. But you made a conflicting point yourself
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
None of this requires
On 22 January 2012 23:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our
various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be
bullied by US jurisdiction.
AIUI setting up the new Virginia datacentre took
On 23 January 2012 00:43, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Svip svi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2012 23:31, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
The wiki way to talk may be favored by the Wikipedia community, but is
really weird to the general
On 23 January 2012 00:44, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip svi...@gmail.com wrote:
The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
would be 'collaboration page',
Yao Ziyuan wrote:
This merit is even more evident when the topic is very specialized,
e.g. [[Phonological history of English low back vowels]]. I bet there
isn't a forum on the Web dedicated to this very specialized topic, and
even if there is one, it can be very hard to find it with Google
Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered,
professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the
client to politicians and then facilitate
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:16 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Yao Ziyuan wrote:
This merit is even more evident when the topic is very specialized,
e.g. [[Phonological history of English low back vowels]]. I bet there
isn't a forum on the Web dedicated to this very specialized topic,
On 22 January 2012 23:33, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
You may have heard the other stereotype about lobbying, that people who
actually propose and support legislation like SOPA and PIPA are backed by
lobbyist on behalf RIAA, MPAA and other large publishers, who have very
deep pockets.
Hi Mike
I want to talk for a minute about lobbying in general, aside from the WMF
position on it. Because this might be one of those international issues
where perceptions might differ based on the culture and nationality of
someone. I know my position on this might be naive or flawed, but I know
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:12 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2012 23:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our
various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be
bullied by US
On 22 January 2012 08:30, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
I thought we had already discussed this here, but maybe it was only
discussed on
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 22 January 2012 08:30, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I thought we had already discussed this here, but maybe it was only
discussed on the SOPA pages on-wiki? Upshot: the Wikimedia Foundation
engaged a DC firm, Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, to help us better
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Direct lobbying is relatively new compared to the older forms of government
and legislative influence. Strictly from a global south perspective, a
similar form of unregulated advocacy and influence that I saw practiced here
I find this discussion interesting, although after Sue's clarification, it
might be moot. But I am going to continue it, until someone asks to take
this off-list.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Gregory Varnum
gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on direct
lobbying of related issues.
20% of the first $500,000, 15% of the next $500,000, 10% of the next
$500,000, and 5% of the rest, with a cap
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an area I have no expertise in. My nascent understanding of the
legal implication of those legislations aside, I, like others usually defer
to more respected opinions. The Citizens United ruling for example has been
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The
pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still
lost.
Citation needed.
Plus, If money is the measure of effectiveness, what does this
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and
corporations are people
Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that?
___
foundation-l mailing list
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 22 January 2012 08:30, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
I
On 1/22/12 7:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
P.S. Hi Jorm, whatcha think? ;)
I think that trying to school Mike Godwin on Citizens United and IP Law
is colossally bad idea. But entertaining.
--
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The
pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still
lost.
Citation
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and
corporations are people
Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and
corporations
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I think that trying to school Mike Godwin on Citizens United and IP
Law is colossally bad idea. But entertaining.
I agree completely. I love Mike, why on earth would you think I was trying
to school him? I was
Experimentation that relies on the availability of Pending changes
would be better carried out of those language Wikipedias that have
adopted the system, such as the German Wikipedia.
The English WP decide not to use Pending Changes; I cannot for certain
predict what would happen if the request
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that was
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
If you read I said according to recent rulings
And as far as I can tell, what you claim those recent rulings said, is
not what the recent rulings said.
___
foundation-l mailing
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
If you read I said according to recent rulings
And as far as I can tell, what you claim those recent rulings said, is
not what the recent rulings said.
Le 22/01/2012 20:04, Mike Godwin a écrit :
Another important lesson about arguing issues in Washington is that
the fight is never over. The content companies have been at war with
technology companies for decades over copyright issues. The fact that
we were heard one day (or even one week) in
Le 22/01/2012 20:18, Thomas Dalton a écrit :
That's a good analogy. The approach often taken with studies about
humanity is not to do experiments (because they can be harmful) but
instead to examine things that have already happened or are happening
anyway.
But then you won't act until
What about sharing the whole databases among the millions of users, in
some p2p net with a lot of redundancies?, something like a dense, cloudy
internet of databases who remains whole even if it looses part of
itself? Does it sound unwordly?
It could be a good complement to the server based
Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you
would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion?
Le 22/01/2012 21:16, Mike Godwin a écrit :
Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I
Le 22/01/2012 23:30, Mike Godwin a écrit :
I think you imagine the blackout was the only thing that mattered in
turning this legislation around. I can see why you might think that,
but it is incorrect. Effective strategies for political change are
implemented on many levels, and, in my view,
Le 22/01/2012 20:00, Thomas Dalton a écrit :
On 22 January 2012 22:54, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I welcome your independent research project when you get it started.
Or anybody's, really. I suppose the null hypothesis is that one can
simply stay silent and wins the issue anyway.
Cyrano writes:
Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you
would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion?
No, I wouldn't say that. Whenever you have enough human beings
assembled to create a political environment, you create the potential
for
88 matches
Mail list logo
