geni wrote:
On 1/22/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
geni (geniice@gmail.com) [060121 07:05]:
Ok now it we've got it reframed so it is not such an obvious attempt to push inclusionism
Presumably this is an example of your grasp of good faith.
If the user is an inclusionist it is hardly imposible that they may propose policies that support their position. The original proposal did fairly clearly favor the inclusionist position. It is hardly ilogical to conclude that the intial proposal was in part meant to forward the inclusionist position. The regular anti deletionist sentiments expressed on this list renforces this conclusion.
That kind of us-versus-them attitude is bound to make achieving a solution more difficult. Those who really want to find solutions are careful to avoid using the words "inclusionist" or "deletionist". Characterizations that put participants in one camp or the other are just not helpful.
Ec