Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dear Sotiris
>
> On reflection I may have been more brusque than I meant.  If so I apologise.
> It certainly was not my intention to ascribe any motivation (such as lying)
> to your comments.
>
> Should any such inference be made, I withdraw it unreservedly.

Very well, no problem.  Consider the matter settled, apology accepted.

> In fact, I have always respected your good will and, as you made clear
> in an earlier email, your intention was, as you say, to probe the underlying
> implications.  I respect that and responded amending the wording a little.

The amendment made it a little clearer but I still think the words "prescribed
procedures" should be replaced with the specific prescription in question
(i.e.
the rule currently in place, or a proposal for such a rule).  You see, my
problem is with the overall lack of rules as a whole, which makes this
specific
motion a wee bit premature, in my estimation.

> My comments were merely meant to say that too much examination of the
> *next step* prevents us from taking the *first step*.  The motion is really
> quite simple.  It is to prevent continuing disruption of substantive debate
> with arguments about procedural issues.  I'd value your support.
>
> The fact is that the General Assembly is totally incapable of getting any
> work done or even any motion passed.
>
> I think that is shameful.

Oh, I agree...

> There really is significant support for the motion.  Should you agree, I am
> sure that Danny would assist by recognising the desirability of separating
> substantive and procedural issues.

If by significant support you mean numbers, then I'm not sure that's so... but
I
am mindful of those individuals who publicly stated their support, and I
respect
all of their opinions (even though I may not necessarily agree or disagree
with
them).  Furthermore, I will admit that I am disappointed by the GA's plight,
and
I do recognize that much of the problem stems from the ongoing confusion
between
substantive and procedural concerns.  So, while I am inclined to support the
general spirit of the motion, I am still far from comfortable with the motion
itself and entertain questions with respect to its semiotics.

Best Regards,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html