From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 21:22:47 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <4093F859.3090401@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>>Your "substantive objections" have been discussed ad nauseam, and you have
>>>signally failed to persuade anybody of their merit.
>
>
>>Lies. There are others in this WG (John Stanley and Eivind Tagseth at
>>minimum) who have clearly stated that your text does not belong in the
>>USEFOR document, and that it but one of the substantive objections.
>
>
> This is still only three people, at most. It is clear that you and John
> reject the compromise. Eivind can speak for himself.
Whether that is "only" three people, or two, or a dozen, the point stands
that your statement quoted above is a great big fib. No surprise; it's
not the first time that you have misrepresented the facts in pursuit of
your own agenda.
And there is no "compromise" to speak of. The latest text that you have
proposed is negligibly different from the November draft in most respects.
n some respects it is worse in areas which have been objected to (with
clear rationale for the objection having been given).