Posted by SLS on September 14, 2006, at 21:00:37
In reply to Re: nothing to see here, move along SLS, notfred » SLS, posted by Jost on September 14, 2006, at 19:31:06
> I was referring to the basic issues at stake in this discussion. What are we talking about, actually?
Someone would like to impeach a deputy. They would like for a deputy to not administrate anymore.
> ie are there any major bad decisions that occurred here recently?
This someone believes that there was.
> Some seeming misconduct on someone's part such that the discussion has some point
This someone believes so; enough to post a series of petitions to Dr. Bob to remove a deputy from service.
> -- as opposed to being a formalistic exercise about theoretical possibilities?
I don't think the sophomorish bantor that was occurring between NotFred and myself approached anything so lofty as a formalistic exercise.
> If so, I haven't noticed it, and would like to know, in terms that I can comprehend, what it is.
Why do you need to know so much?
> If there isn't any, then the discussion hasn't got enough content.
I apologize. Again. It's those damned premium posting requirements that I can never quite meet.
> IMO discussing issues like this--and alluding to impeachment, etc.-- in a vacuum (ie a space without any context),
I doubt the participants in the discussion ever lost sight of the context within which the concept of impeachment was being considered. I felt no vacuum by the way.
> is useless,
To you, perhaps. I learned a few things.
> because without enough instances and shared examples, there's really no way of knowing what anyone means.
This must surely be true. There have been no shared examples here, and I haven't a clue what any of this means.
> From your comments, it seemed that you did see a basis for the discussion. From your comments, I'd also concluded that you'd be likely to be able to state it in a way that I'd understand and could work with.
I have no need of you working with any of my comments. Believe me, they are fine just the way they are.
> No criticism of you was intended.
Phew.
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:685647
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/686056.html