Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 21/11 23:40 +1 Re: Secret votes
- 10/11 09:27 +1 Re: Secret votes
- 09/11 19:11 +1 Re: Secret votes
Latest posts
- 21/11 23:40 +1 Re: Secret votes
- 10/11 09:27 +1 Re: Secret votes
- 09/11 19:11 +1 Re: Secret votes
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Secret votes
-
Gordan Ponjavic wrote:
> Seem I have to clear out some things, at least the way how do I see > them. > > TOP system does not accept things that are not part of it. These things > are not existent to TOP system. TOP system has its inputs and its > outputs. > > For an example, if you decide to run AD and are ready to be the only > person with RL ID, than you are the only real person and others are > virtual entities considering TOP. > > If we define things that way, than we can talk about TOP with no > excuse. If we are forcing things to be accepted, things that are not > part of TOP system, then we are not talking about TOP system any more. > > So, there is no place for exceptions as long as exceptions mean some > things are placed in wrong way. TOP system does not stand it. > > ATB, > Gale
Gordan,
Sorry to say, but aren’t we here to discuss the terms and conditions for TOP?
I can understand your principles but can you se my point?
+1
-
MG je napisao/la:
> Gordan Ponjavic wrote: > > Seem I have to clear out some things, at least the way how do I see > > them. > > > > TOP system does not accept things that are not part of it. These things > > are not existent to TOP system. TOP system has its inputs and its > > outputs. > > > > For an example, if you decide to run AD and are ready to be the only > > person with RL ID, than you are the only real person and others are > > virtual entities considering TOP. > > > > If we define things that way, than we can talk about TOP with no > > excuse. If we are forcing things to be accepted, things that are not > > part of TOP system, then we are not talking about TOP system any more. > > > > So, there is no place for exceptions as long as exceptions mean some > > things are placed in wrong way. TOP system does not stand it. > > > > ATB, > > Gale > > Gordan, > Sorry to say, but aren’t we here to discuss the terms and conditions > for TOP? > I can understand your principles but can you se my point?
OK. TOP is principle. You can use exceptions if you like. Though, you have to state them clearly.
I might also think that even I so called full TOP guy might be interested in some exceptions that I could find important. Yet, in that case I have to state that I am doing exceptions. That is all.
ATB;
Gale—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
OK, Gordan!
Reality will force us to some adaptations, that’s for sure. And I agree, that as long as the exceptions are clearly defined, they could be accepted at least after a discussion within top- TOP- organization.
I’m definately not after that there will be many exceptions after time, because that will as you foresee, lead to outwatering of the TOP principle giving it no relevance in the end.
So maybe we should have as a rule that all exceptions have to be authorized by TOP-organization in order to be able to still call yourself an TOP-certified organization?
Basically, we should go ahead and form a more strict organization with the goal of signing authorizations for all organizations interested.—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
A while ago we in Tiaktiv thought that we might be authorizing body that would give licenses.
Yet, if you create such body that is giving licenses, than there is a big concentration of power in one place, which is not good. Now we believe that we work in the same manner as GNU is working. They just develop policies and if you like them, you adopt them.
If you are taking policies that you do not obey to, than every individual has to clearly notice such thing, which gives such organization bad reputation of fakers.
About your comment, the problem is that such principle can kidnap meaning of TOP. Imagine thing where four of us are TOP and in next time somebody threaten us so we have to go non-TOP and adopt policies that are against it. It would ruin the power of such brand which is not a good thing I believe.
That is the reason why I believe that every single individual should be the one to judge who is top and who is not.
I hope it makes sense.
ATB,
Gale—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
