On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> 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