On 17/04/16 10:01, Jan Ingvoldstad
wrote:
Jan, I think you should read my previous
posts, I've come up with several arguments, none of which have
been seriously discussed and analyzed.
Also FYI I've been reading the discussions here for a long time,
and this intervention is my first because I see the same
explanation again and again without no base.
This should be a discussion on arguments not just a presentation
of personal "default" denial of any change to policy. This is what
I saw until now. I was under the impression that people here can
start a discussion and analyze the *for* and *against* arguments
until we reach a conclusion. Am I wrong?