No one knows what actually goes on in the minds of a voter not oneself. That never stops us from guessing, based one what a non-scientific sample of others say. Most `sides' try to present some resolutions they feel bound to pass so that they can tell their supporters they came home with a least something, if not the bacon they wanted. I felt +Keith was in part doing that, and in part double-dog daring progressives not to vote for historic understandings of the faith. He would of course have his own understanding of what a yes vote meant that many who would also vote `yes' might not share. In that mix, the majority refused to take bait. You could not say they opposed the historic understandings, but that they weren't going to put them up for reconfirmation in a setting that was highly politically charged. I am definitely describing my own reaction to the proposal. I am only guessing that others shared it. Once when Benjamin Franklin was loosing for one of his proposals for the Continental Congress, he said, "Gentlemen, I move that we pause for a moment of prayer." Alexander Hamilton replied, "Gentlemen, I move that we not bring in any outside interference." I think the `no' vote on B001 called Bishop Ackerman's bluff. Best wishes. Louie Louie Crew, 377 S. Harrison St., 12D, E. Orange, NJ 07018. 973-395-1068 http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew -----Original Message----- Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:37 AM To: email@example.com Subject: B001 Dear Louie, I've been cruising the "dark side of the web" and notice that AAC is making much over the defeat of Rez B001 at Gen Con 2003, saying that it is a rejection of historic Christianity, etc., etc. I assume most of who voted to reject it didn't think they were doing that. I know my bishop didn't. Do you have some sense of the rationale of those who voted to reject? Thanks! **********
Please sign my guestbook and view it.
Statistics courtesy of