[EM] Answers regarding claim about Approval's enact-ability

[Jameson Quinn]

2012/4/13 Michael Ossipoff <mikeo2106 at msn.com>

>  Richard--
>
> No one can fault you for being busy.
>
> But, I would just humbly suggest that, if you're too busy to support a
> statement that you make,
> it would be great if you could also be too busy to _make_ the statement.
>

Might I humbly suggest that if you've been repeatedly asked by more than
one list member to not use acronyms that aren't documented on the
electorama wiki, and you've repeatedly put off these requests by saying
you'll do it when you get around to it, that it would be great if you'd
refrain from telling others what not to say, especially if doing so
involves mischaracterizing terse support complete with apology as a lack of
support?


> Remember that the EM guidelines ask that we be prepared to support our
> statements.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
> P.S.
>
> I'm sorry--I didn't mean to imply that I request my e-mail address to be
> in my signature. I've noticed
> that none of the other signatures contain an e-mail address. When I found
> my e-mail address in the suggested short-version,
> I left it in my own improved short version, thinking that it must be a
> standard feature that I hadn't noticed
> present in the others. Then I noticed that it isn't in the others.
> Removing my e-mail address would make
> my signature more in line with the others, in addition to improving its
> brevity.
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120413/b708b913/attachment-0004.htm>