Making sure mike sees this thread... He's been talking to the same people I
believe.
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Dec 11, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.com wrote:
city changed the click through to
Anthony schrieb:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote:
Ed Avis schrieb:
Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined.
Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of
how active contributors are defined?
There's not a clear
On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
If 67% is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's
abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then.
There's no such thing as legalese as I've said before. The CT's
don't say 67% they say 2/3,
On 11/12/10 17:27, Simon Ward wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +, Rob Myers wrote:
Why leave it undefined?
To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means
that if the community could always say It's the OKD, stupid!. :-)
Ok, well I guess I’m trying to say
On 11/12/10 18:31, Simon Ward wrote:
Then I don’t know how to argue against fear (or rationale based on
fear). Do you have any pointers? :)
My argument is neither motivated by fear nor requires fear in order to
make the point that I believe it does. And I do not believe that the
general
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
If 67% is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's
abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then.
There's no such thing
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.com
wrote:
city changed the click through to address those problems. The agreement
is
located here:
