On 1/22/06, David Gerard
<fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
geni (geniice(a)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