On 10/26/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikispam(a)inbox.org> wrote:
If an actual no-foolin' expert dissents, then
there isn't consensus in
the
first place.
And if an actual no-foolin' expert supports the consensus?
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general
agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking majority
with consensus.