RE: [wg-c] We have no Emperor: Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Am I allowed to agree with BobC here?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 7:22 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-c] We have no Emperor: Re: The Emperor's New Consensus
> (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )
>
>
> At 21:40 21-09-1999 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >  More than 70% of those expressing a view, though, were in
> >favor.  That is, by the end of Sept. 14, twenty-six people had sent
> >messages to this list weighing in on one side or the other.  Nineteen
> >people expressed support, and seven expressed opposition.
> All of these
> >messages were sent to the public list.
>
> Dear Jonathan and Javier:
>
> In my opinion, you two have acted quite responsibly on this
> issue.  Recognising that Jonathan and Javier hold opposing
> views, it is
> heartening to see the matter handles in such a democratic manner.
>
> I feel I should apologize for my "cousin Kevin" to imply that the
> determination was made in an imperious manner.
>
> Congratulations and *thanks* for your *thank-less* efforts;-)
>
> Personal regards,
> BobC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "One test is worth three expert opinions!"
> Ulric B. Bray
>