Re: Too many changes?

["practic![e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Ole's replied to me privately, and I can't redistribute his note without
his express permission. I chose to reply to his public comments to Bill
because they remined me of a local Juvenile Court Judge, who when tasked
to explain why one family known to her (and myself) had fallen off the
end of the family reunification process and was headed for parental rights
termination, finally chose to take the tack of:

	Have you been to all of the hearings?

When she allowed as how she hadn't, he (the JC Judge) seemed to think that
the issue was closed. He neglected to mention that such hearings are closed
to parties not having standing, which is quite restrictive in Calif. Juvenile
law, and even the parents of the affected children might not be able to say
that they'd attended all of the hearings.

This was an appeal to authority to end questioning, and since Bill is in no
position to obtain the figures Ole wrote that he would like so very much to
see, I read that public comment by Ole as an appeal to authority. Anything
Bill wrote in reply would be a guess, perhaps a well-informed one.

I repeat, IOP is not relevent to the POISED thread. Appeals to authority,
or other forms of arguement, or accidental diversion, isn't going to get
the POISED list, or the IETF through a difficult period.

Eric