(07-23-2024, 01:29 AM)PaulP date Wrote:You object to what you perceive is a loophole in the definition, assume a phalanx of unworthy candidates are going to sign on as a result of this "loophole", make no attempt to confirm whether there are any checks and balances in place to reduce the incidence of such applications, and wildly assert that all these hard earned research dollars are being flushed down the toilet, all without the slightest bit of evidence.No
No loophole, never claimed it was a loophole, it's in the charter and that will become criteria for funding approval.
No phalanx, never wrote that, but it will be proportional representation, any study has to be proportional representation to be considered viable.
No checks and balances, they can't discriminate that's already long settled in law a long time ago.
No lack of evidence, the intent is in the very links some have already provided earlier in this debate, the existence of those documents is all the confirmation you need, they don't differentiate candidacy.
Just no, no need to become extreme, not sure what you are defending.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"