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