She presented/discussed both the adopted changes and the proposed changes, so readers can know what was adopted, firstly, and secondly, know the proposed items that didn’t get adopted. I don’t see an issue with the comprehensive approach taken.
tbh a completely pointless, manufactured conflict - waste of energy and time. who tf cares how someone calls it win/lose. what’s important is understanding what’s happening and stopping further erosion of liberty and regaining what we lost.
I’ve been reading them, but the language is so dense that it takes a lot of time and study. I find the comparison to be useful for sure, and perhaps better than reading the 2024 IHR docs in isolation. Having said that now I’m going to read the 2005 version with 2007 amendments and directly compare the two. You’re right when you say, nobody reads them for themselves. And that’s why I started reading and re-reading them over and over a few weeks ago. It is very heavy going.
Thankyou for your comment. I do follow James and his analysis. However given I work in a complex policy environment I have the skills to parse the documents and form my own views concerning its interpretation. In the meantime I’m interested in how all the substack reviewers frame the outcomes of IHR amendments; that doesn’t mean I take their analysis as ‘truth’. Rather I prefer to come to my own conclusions without pressure or politics
I’m not sure you read my comment accurately. Otherwise it appears you are merely being argumentative. I draw my own conclusions and am not a ‘follower’ of any particular school of thought but will diligently draw my own conclusions. Not Meryl Nass conclusions- mine. In the meantime I am interested in the conclusions others draw and are happy to have an open conversation with the authors. You are arguing in a hollow circle with yourself
Yes it may have been better, but at least she has tried to look at current v proposed to check the differences. I found that to be quite useful. I would imagine it’s time consuming work. Perhaps you or others could analyse the actual amendments? That’s what James Roguski did right?
She presented/discussed both the adopted changes and the proposed changes, so readers can know what was adopted, firstly, and secondly, know the proposed items that didn’t get adopted. I don’t see an issue with the comprehensive approach taken.
tbh a completely pointless, manufactured conflict - waste of energy and time. who tf cares how someone calls it win/lose. what’s important is understanding what’s happening and stopping further erosion of liberty and regaining what we lost.
I’ve been reading them, but the language is so dense that it takes a lot of time and study. I find the comparison to be useful for sure, and perhaps better than reading the 2024 IHR docs in isolation. Having said that now I’m going to read the 2005 version with 2007 amendments and directly compare the two. You’re right when you say, nobody reads them for themselves. And that’s why I started reading and re-reading them over and over a few weeks ago. It is very heavy going.
Thankyou for your comment. I do follow James and his analysis. However given I work in a complex policy environment I have the skills to parse the documents and form my own views concerning its interpretation. In the meantime I’m interested in how all the substack reviewers frame the outcomes of IHR amendments; that doesn’t mean I take their analysis as ‘truth’. Rather I prefer to come to my own conclusions without pressure or politics
I’m not sure you read my comment accurately. Otherwise it appears you are merely being argumentative. I draw my own conclusions and am not a ‘follower’ of any particular school of thought but will diligently draw my own conclusions. Not Meryl Nass conclusions- mine. In the meantime I am interested in the conclusions others draw and are happy to have an open conversation with the authors. You are arguing in a hollow circle with yourself
Yes it may have been better, but at least she has tried to look at current v proposed to check the differences. I found that to be quite useful. I would imagine it’s time consuming work. Perhaps you or others could analyse the actual amendments? That’s what James Roguski did right?