In article <dc9b20bb0510030949lcaf55f5w895f367e3ea0739 / mail.gmail.com>,
Eivind Eklund  <eeklund / gmail.com> wrote:
>On 10/3/05, David A. Black <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:
>> Hi --
>>
>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Eivind Eklund wrote:
>>
>> > On 10/3/05, Tanner Burson <tanner.burson / gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 10/3/05, Eivind Eklund <eeklund / gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> If you don't, please stop scaring people - we want them to go
>> >>> implement type inference for Ruby :)
>> >>
>> >> 'We' do?
>> >
>> > Yes, "we" do.  As in the Ruby community.
>>
>> I think "we" would be better off not predicating membership in the
>> Ruby community on interest in a particular project or direction of
>> development.  It's inaccurate, in this case, and rather an
>> unattractive precedent.
>
>I meant it quite differently and much more positive: As an inclusive
>"what I believe to be a majority opinion, at least given an informed
>majority" (without excluding anybody.)
>

Did you take a poll?  

Does 'informed majority' mean the opinions of those who agree with you? ;-)

Phil