|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 335 responses total. |
tpryan
|
|
response 128 of 335:
| 
Oct 25 17:52 UTC 2001 |
86 responses in 24 hours - time to forget. Sorry.
|
scott
|
|
response 129 of 335:
|
Oct 25 18:20 UTC 2001 |
Grexers are generally open to other people. However, we do hold a grudge
pretty well, which is why Jamie feels like we're against him.
|
md
|
|
response 130 of 335:
|
Oct 25 18:29 UTC 2001 |
Heh. Go to the oldpolicy conference on mnet and check out item 120 for
an example (one *small* example) of how Jamie and other "mnetters" feel
about Grex. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 131 of 335:
|
Oct 25 18:34 UTC 2001 |
Jamie, I harbor no hatred toward MNet. Do you know where my attacks came
from? It was a combination of info others have posted here and your negative
responses. Add to that your vague description of how you will benefit Grex.
You cite Arbor Net/MNet success as the basis for your competence, but I am
not familiar with MNet. You were asking us to do the work to verify your
success.
Some concrete examples of how you would improve Grex would have been in order.
The only issues you have stated strong opinion on are the user ID methods in
place and the message logs. I don't believe that changing these policies will
bring in hordes of new users.
Attacking people while here does not improve things for your image.
Truth be told, image usually outweighs ability.
|
jp2
|
|
response 132 of 335:
|
Oct 25 18:43 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 133 of 335:
|
Oct 25 19:13 UTC 2001 |
Sindi in resp:125 :: you wrote, about M-net ::
> even though I have a paid membership there because I like using
> their faster hardware for browsing.)
Has M-net told you how much more you'll be expected to pay to
renew that membership when it expires soon? :)
Maybe Jamie can tell you how wonderful it is that you'll be paying more.
|
jp2
|
|
response 134 of 335:
|
Oct 25 19:18 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 135 of 335:
|
Oct 25 19:42 UTC 2001 |
I paid for my membership today - one year's worth.
Things should be all lined up after I e-mail an image of my ID to the staff
tonight. A concept I have no problem with.
See you at the polls.
|
jp2
|
|
response 136 of 335:
|
Oct 25 19:57 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 137 of 335:
|
Oct 25 19:59 UTC 2001 |
Thank you, Terence, and thank you, Jamie! :)
I hope Terence will stick around for more than just the upcoming
election.
|
jp2
|
|
response 138 of 335:
|
Oct 25 20:10 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 139 of 335:
|
Oct 25 20:16 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 140 of 335:
|
Oct 25 20:40 UTC 2001 |
I guess I am ignorant, Jamie. I just go by the published minutes of
Arbornet:
> Void suggested that we reduce the rate for a Patronship to $7.50
> per month or $80.00 per year for the next six months. Existing Members
> would get Patron access immediately, and they would need to renew as
> Patrons.
> Jp2 moved void's suggestion, dpc seconded, and the motion carried
> 3-0.
So, the minutes say explicitly that "Members" must renew as
"Patrons." The plain reading would say that they from paying
$50/year to $80/year,
but Jamie says there is some secret proposal I don't know about
which might allow existing members to be grandfathered in at the
current $50 rate.
I sure am "stupid" for trusting the published records of the Board
Jamie serves on today.
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 141 of 335:
|
Oct 25 20:50 UTC 2001 |
Wow, Jamie. The longer you are here, the more people you attack.
Every time you open your mouth, you show us how stupid you are. This is not
the way to influence people, I'm telling ya.
I always wonder how long it will take for a troll like you to disappear.
Given, we have to stop feeding you first, but it's SO MUCH FUN to watch...
BTW, I was considering membership before all this. You did succeed in making
up my mind. I suppose the benefit could be compared to virus writers creating
business for antivirus companies.
|
krj
|
|
response 142 of 335:
|
Oct 25 20:54 UTC 2001 |
((Jamie's been here for years, I doubt he's going away soon.))
|
jp2
|
|
response 143 of 335:
|
Oct 25 21:06 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 144 of 335:
|
Oct 25 21:20 UTC 2001 |
Can't wait to hear the answers to that one.
|
jp2
|
|
response 145 of 335:
|
Oct 25 21:25 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 146 of 335:
|
Oct 25 21:36 UTC 2001 |
Yeah, and *everybody* remembers that you're an asshole. Is that fair?
|
krj
|
|
response 147 of 335:
|
Oct 25 22:01 UTC 2001 |
Gosh, we should just put jp2 on the board by acclamation. Why
bother with the election?
|
jp2
|
|
response 148 of 335:
|
Oct 25 22:02 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 149 of 335:
|
Oct 25 22:15 UTC 2001 |
I don't need a serious argument against your candidacy. All I need is the
opportunity to vote for an adequate number of other candidates to fill the
board seats with people I admire.
|
krj
|
|
response 150 of 335:
|
Oct 25 22:15 UTC 2001 |
Yeah, Arbornet put you on the board because it ran out of other
volunteers.
|
krj
|
|
response 151 of 335:
|
Oct 25 22:16 UTC 2001 |
(Colleen slipped in, argh)
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 152 of 335:
|
Oct 25 23:22 UTC 2001 |
Jamie...
You say you are trying to win. How exactly are you trying? Believe it or
not, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I just stayed quiet until I had
formed my opinion. Trying to win an election includes winning people over.
One word.
Failure.
|
