 | | Re: An Alternative..
|
| Richard, I am not being argumentative just for the sake of it. I am truly having difficulty seeing your side of this, and as is usually the case, wondering why you can't see mine. I made some replies below that I would like you to look at. I am (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An Alternative..
|
| (...) I'll give it my best go. (...) I agree - because once you have Social Groupings that organise their own affairs independently, there won't be *MUCH* that you'd need *EVERYONE* to vote on at one time? (...) Well, if that means that you think my (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An Alternative..
|
| Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) vote (...) Except, I suppose, officials? (...) great (...) It was a comparison. I wasn't sure if we were ready for square one yet. We need to be sure we are on about the same wavelength. (...) everything (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An Alternative..
|
| (...) Official what? (...) Ah - *thats* what you mean.. cool, agreed! (...) There's no reason why you couldn't use the existing infrastructure as a scaffolding to create a new one. (...) Except that the federal government can close or open any (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An Alternative..
|
| Sorry Richard, this has been sitting in my draft folder... Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) <snip> (...) country (...) agree, (...) almost (...) That depends on geography. The Federal government doesn't exert that much control here. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
