Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 26: Line 26:  
As a candidate who read the instructions and wrote within the limit, I think it is disrespectful of other candidates to bypass this requirement, even if you don't agree with it. There are plenty of venues for expression of your opinion, but it is fair to voters to have a summary in one location.
 
As a candidate who read the instructions and wrote within the limit, I think it is disrespectful of other candidates to bypass this requirement, even if you don't agree with it. There are plenty of venues for expression of your opinion, but it is fair to voters to have a summary in one location.
 
[[User:Sebastian|Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Sebastian|talk]]) 21:07, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 
[[User:Sebastian|Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Sebastian|talk]]) 21:07, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 +
 +
:You are certainly welcome to your opinion. As a matter of fact, my statement meets the character limit, so to suggest that my statement does not is nothing but an attempt to disparage me. That said, I reserve my right to express my dissatisfaction with the limit and the manner in which it was implemented. No evidence has been given that the committee actually discussed and agreed to this limit. The email chain provided only suggests that it was presented as a ''fait du complete'', not "ratified" by either the committee, or as suggested, by the oversight board. A unilateral decision, yet to be justified, by one member of the committee. This committee member also presumed to speak on behalf of the committee in voicing the opinion in these pages that my quoting my mentor Seymour Papert and a youth who grew up with Sugar was inappropriate. Only after this duplicity was exposed did she revert her assertion that she was speaking for the committee. Of course, there was no apology made. The history of this discussion page is quite clear. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] ([[User talk:Walter|talk]]) 21:20, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

Navigation menu