On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Loui Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:44:20AM -0700, w9ya wrote: > > O.k.... well try to not be so strident with things like "It's stupid" > when > > someone tells you about reasons and goals and results. That may be > "history" > > lesson, but it also may just hold something you have not considered > because > > you did not know of it. > > Your mention of history is irrelevant. You say things have always been > the way they are now, so how can you know if a different system would be > better or worse? You can't because you don't have the history. > > Um, Loui... Aaron was the one that called *my* history lessons here "stupid". But as long as you agree that there is much to be learned from history; you should WANT to go back over that past several years worth of discussions and read up on it BEFORE you make your suggestions . (As I have suggested you do twice already.) I am pretty sure you will find that a very few TUs agreed to limit/decree what was *historically* (and always) a TU's personal preferences** concerning his/her contributions to community. These proposals, as I pointed out earlier today have ALWAYS been been defeated by the TU group. <- That is the history lesson I sought to give. And the reasons why have been covered in my previous posts today. Perhaps it would make some sense to go read just today's output AGAIN ? (To date, these proposals that were defeated have generally come form NEW(er) TUs that see limiting a TU's community contributions as a solution to some problem. We have generally found other solutions AND the TUs that have been doing this awhile do not seem to offer up these sorts of proposals. Again I mention this as a history lesson.) As for Aaron's calling my history lessons "stupid" or "regressive", well I will let that speak for itself. Best regards; Bob Finch
