response 244 of 299:

Aug 30 21:13 UTC 2002

fag.

response 248 of 299:

Aug 30 21:28 UTC 2002

fag.

response 250 of 299:

Aug 30 21:38 UTC 2002

        When you're proposing an idea, though, there's a way to do it and a
way not to do it.  Accusing someone of being prejudiced, for instance, is more
likely to make them not listen to your proposal, whatever its' merits, and
whether or not they are prejudiced in fact.  There is no ethical compulsion
to state your proposal in a manner that doesn't generate cognitive dissonance,
but if you're proposing a change, you're generally proposing it to a group
that (as mentioned before) is somewhat conservative in keeping the values that
have worked for them before, so it's simply more expedient.

response 254 of 299:

Aug 30 22:18 UTC 2002

fag.

response 256 of 299:

Aug 31 00:17 UTC 2002

(having finally waded through this item...)

(in resp:17, mynxcat asks why Grex has never amended its bylaws 
to "allow" remote board members.  the simple answer is that a proposal 
to do so was never made.  the only time the issue has come up before 
in discussion [that I recall] was last year, when jp2 made a run for 
the board.  IIRC, he wasn't prevented from running.)

(for me, the discussion seemed to fall apart somewhere around resp:18-
30, but I continued to wade through, only to watch it fall apart again 
with resp:154, which IMO didn't at all reflect on the prior 
discussion.  I should note that there are a number of "long-time 
Grexers" [who, frankly, haven't been around as long as I have, if that 
stick must be waved] who, although they speak "loudly", do *not* speak 
for the rest of Grex, any more than you or I do.  I certainly wouldn't 
put much stock in their "historical" perspective, because they don't 
necessarily have it.)

(I'll also add that if you, the reader, are going to base your opinion 
of what the Grex community is or wants on the comments of a vocal 
minority, I suppose I can't stop you.  however, I would encourage you 
to try to give each user's argument the weight it deserves, which 
sometimes is none, regardless of whether they've bought a membership 
or not.  there's 80+ members, and the discussion in coop isn't always 
indicative of how the membership will vote.)

(in resp:184, cross asks why Grex can't have non-local board members.  
well, most of the preceding responses indicate to me that we CAN.  
having re-read the entire thing, I can safely say that there were only 
two responses *total* that expressed opposition to the idea.)

(also, reading the preceding comments as a whole, I notice that there 
are many users [members, even!] who seem sympathetic to a change that 
would allow board members to participate in meetings from remote 
locations.  all it would take is a written proposal by an interested 
party.  heck, there's disagreement over whether THAT'S even needed.)

(the only board member who I can remember stepping down due to not 
being able to attend meetings was mju some eight years ago, and he 
actually should have stepped down for other reasons that didn't become 
obvious until later.  however, I suspect that, had he wanted to stay 
on, accommodations would have been made.)

(FTR, I'm not a xenophobe.)

response 258 of 299:

Aug 31 00:32 UTC 2002

fag.

response 262 of 299:

Aug 31 01:25 UTC 2002

So, are you going to run again, Jamie?

response 266 of 299:

Aug 31 12:54 UTC 2002

resp:263  ("would have" and "would have to" are two different phrases.
          the former suggests a willingness to accommodate, whereas the
          latter suggests an obligation to do so.  I hope that's clearer.)