Georges Metanomski wrote:
> --- Antonio Rossin <
rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
>
>
>> Georges Metanomski ha scritto:
>>
>>> --- Antonio Rossin <
rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Georges,
>>>>
>>>> There are some flaws about your three functions
>>>>
>> (+1)
>>
>>>> below:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Supporting individual proposals is at
>>>> powerholders' hands, who
>>>> usually support and select the proposals that are
>>>>
>> in
>>
>>>> support to just
>>>> themselves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ==============
>>> G:
>>> Once in DD, there is no "powerholder" else than
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> Forum. Support of individual proposals is a
>>>
>> function
>>
>>> of the logistic support, which accepts and
>>>
>> dieplays
>>
>>> proposals for the next step, the debate.
>>> ==============
>>>
>>>
>> (ant)
>> I agree on what you wrote, that in DD there is no
>> "powerholder" etc.
>>
>> It is the word "Once" which makes me smile. You're
>> speaking as
>> if DD were just out of the door, ready to come in,
>>
> ...
> ================
> G:
> Impossible to discuss if you don't read what I wrote
> and put in my mouth the opposite of what I asserted.
>
> QUOTE of Shadow Parliament
> Three issues seem essential for starting to move
> towards the DD:
>
> 1.Getting a Shadow Parliament within the Particracy.
>
> 2.Establish a logistic 3 Functions support.
>
> 3.Propound Sincerity, which appears to be the
> critical condition of DD.
> UNQUOTE
>
> QUOTE
> If Logistics requires at least a generation,
> Sincerity will come still later, if ever,
> UNQUOTE
>
> So I don't speak about DD as if it were just
> out of the door.
>
> Yet, I suggest a DD based militant group viz. the
> "Shadow Parliament", internally DD structured and to
> which would internally apply all my DD assertions.
>
> WDDM could evolve to such a group if it stopped
> "discussing" silly cliches and decided to became
> sincere.
>
> Georges
> ================
>