response 169 of 299:

Aug 29 17:35 UTC 2002

166: Nope, I'm either getting a haircut that day or else visiting my 
uncle Louie at the nursing home, I forget which.

(You know, I think in #165 I figured out why this discussion makes 
Jamie so nervous.)

response 171 of 299:

Aug 29 18:02 UTC 2002

Sense is the bone the burglar throws to the guard dog.

I think I meant #164, not #165.

response 173 of 299:

Aug 29 18:13 UTC 2002

You may be right.

response 175 of 299:

Aug 29 19:03 UTC 2002

resp:167 - Now *that* is a useless potshot, not to mention plain 
wrong.  One is "rejected" based upon lack of votes.  Inability to 
attend board meetings is a legitimate reason not to vote for someone, 
even when the [currently hypothetical] "remote rep" option is 
available.  Attendence is kept to make sure the current reps, all 
locals currently, attend meetings.  People can look at those stats and 
see just how active a Board Member is, and use that as a basis for 
voting for or against them, should they choose to run for another term 
or later on down the road.

If remote rep seats are added, there will always be an assured 
representation of users outside the reasonable travelling radius.

I believe that remote candidates are a good idea, but not because of 
your rhetoric.  Now, personally, I think you *are* trying to make this 
more controversial than it is, and an "us versus them" issue.  Maybe 
I'm cranky, but it's as if you are trying to perpetuate this "outside 
looking in" air, and it gets old.  Last I'm I checked, you were apart 
of this community, too. Of course, that's entirely up to you.  

response 177 of 299:

Aug 29 19:33 UTC 2002

Is that a threat or a treat, the M-Net policy conf.?  I'm tempted to 
ring the doorbell and run.

FWIW you *did* cut of the beginning of my last post.  It does change 
the meeting slightly.

response 183 of 299:

Aug 29 21:36 UTC 2002

Basically, anyone who suggests a change around here gets extremely heavy
resistance.  While there are some open-minded people on Grex, the sheer mass
of negative response to any suggestion that things aren't perfect does give
the impression that there's a Grex "old guard" and that suggestions from
outside the "elite" will be pissed on.  I'm willing to concede that they might
piss on suggestions for change from within their ranks, too, though.

I've run into this twice -- once on the "Grex owns all your text, forever,
because you're too immature to be trusted with a working censor command"
topic, and once when I dared to suggest that the falloff in revenues might
be a hint that Grex should think about changing its approach both to
fundraising and to maintaining the system.  I'm done.  Fuck 'em.

Jamie, on the other hand, may well be playing.