|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 335 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 153 of 335:
| 
Oct 26 00:18 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 154 of 335:
|
Oct 26 00:31 UTC 2001 |
OK, a key issue is the Grexian founding tradition of governing by
consensus. Mr. Candidate, please explain how you fit into that
tradition.
|
jp2
|
|
response 155 of 335:
|
Oct 26 00:47 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 156 of 335:
|
Oct 26 01:03 UTC 2001 |
achieved
divisive
advantageous
|
jp2
|
|
response 157 of 335:
|
Oct 26 01:20 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 158 of 335:
|
Oct 26 01:36 UTC 2001 |
Perhaps the board could add one additional (non-voting ) position, named
something like fool, or clown, for which Jamie could run. He is certainly
doing a good job of entertaining people.
|
jp2
|
|
response 159 of 335:
|
Oct 26 01:43 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 160 of 335:
|
Oct 26 01:44 UTC 2001 |
Re 157: "amendment".
I don't think Jamie "shouldn't be elected". I think he's got the right to
run, but I'll predict he won't win.
|
aruba
|
|
response 161 of 335:
|
Oct 26 03:59 UTC 2001 |
I think the only serious arguments against jp2's candidacy are that he
needs to become a member before the election (which can and will be taken
care of easily, I'm sure) and that he won't be able to attend board
meetings in person. Otherwise, I can't see why anyone would object to him
being a candidate.
It's a separate question whether there are serious arguments for not
electing him. Are those what you were asking for in #145, Jamie?
|
jp2
|
|
response 162 of 335:
|
Oct 26 04:01 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 163 of 335:
|
Oct 26 11:25 UTC 2001 |
Yeah, amendment.
The spelling issues are the least of it. Does it matter that the
candidate's a so-so writer? I would say no. It's true that confusion
of language always indicates confusion of thought, but, you know, what
the hey. Kevin Nicholls (twinkie) complains that Jamie affects
Britishisms like "harbour" and "colour" to make himself sound less
subliterate. Easy trick but, apart from Kevin, who cares? Jamie is
just mediocre, nothing more. Now, if we had a *professionally*
pretentious writer running for election, like Timmy Shores (leland), I
might consider voting for him.
|
brighn
|
|
response 164 of 335:
|
Oct 26 13:11 UTC 2001 |
I've been accused of taking pretension to high heights, but I'm not running.
;} Actually, the preferred words appear to be "condescending" and "pompous."
One possible benefit of Jamie running for Board: People joining Grex just to
vote against him.
|
danr
|
|
response 165 of 335:
|
Oct 26 13:14 UTC 2001 |
I guess Jamie's just ignoring me, but he's said several times he wants
to make Grex managmenet "more nimble," and despite several requests,
has failed to reveal his program for doing this. The biggest argument
against jp2's candidacy is that he's abrasive, and Grex isn't about
being abrasive. Having been a board member, I just don't see him
functioning well on the board.
|
jp2
|
|
response 166 of 335:
|
Oct 26 14:47 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 167 of 335:
|
Oct 26 15:10 UTC 2001 |
I'd be interested in knowing why the board needs to be more nimble. Some of
the board members could benefit from exercise, but I can't recall any
situation where the board's lack of nimbleness was a problem.
|
jp2
|
|
response 168 of 335:
|
Oct 26 15:16 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 169 of 335:
|
Oct 26 15:29 UTC 2001 |
Grex's established procedures for board meeting and decision making are
what they are, in my opinion, because of the belief that the quality of
the discussion and the decisions made will be sufficiently better to
justify the additional effort. In my opinion, the status quo is what it
is because the founders knew it would be better for Grex this way.
I do not believe this has changed, and I believe the 'candidacy' of jp2
is a perfect example of why the status quo is simply superior to other
options at this time.
|
aruba
|
|
response 170 of 335:
|
Oct 26 15:31 UTC 2001 |
I think we are all about community. Part of the way the Grex community
interacts has always been face-to-face, and I for one think it's an
essential part: I would never have become very involved with Grex if I
hadn't seen the possibility of meeting people face-to-face.
I have no objection to totally online communities like The River, but they
don't really interest me much, either. I like the fact that the Grex
community straddles the line between cyberspace and meatspace.
I think I could jump over a candlestick if I had a running start.
|
jp2
|
|
response 171 of 335:
|
Oct 26 15:31 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 172 of 335:
|
Oct 26 15:32 UTC 2001 |
Eric slipped in - #170 was a response to #168.
|
jp2
|
|
response 173 of 335:
|
Oct 26 15:33 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 174 of 335:
|
Oct 26 15:42 UTC 2001 |
Our very existence contravenes your suggestion that Grex does not believe
in online communications. However, the management/oversight of our
organization is better served by a higher level of communication in the
decision making process than is presently available remotely without
current technological and financial resources.
|
other
|
|
response 175 of 335:
|
Oct 26 15:42 UTC 2001 |
in the above...
:/without/with our
|
jp2
|
|
response 176 of 335:
|
Oct 26 15:53 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 177 of 335:
|
Oct 26 15:59 UTC 2001 |
Re #171: It's possible to believe in online communication without
believing it's ideal for every situation. (I believe that screwdrivers
are useful, but I do not use them to hammer nails.)
For example, I communicate online a lot, so I suppose I "believe in
it." But I've also seen long, bitter online arguments solved by a few
minutes of face-to-face conversation, or in some cases even telephone
conversation. There's just no substitute for the emotional feedback
you get from seeing the other person's face or hearing their voice.
Online it's just too easy to forget that the other person has feelings,
or to mistake their tone of voice for something other than it is. In
general people tend to seem colder and more sarcastic online, which
leads to a lot of unnecessary defensiveness.
|
