|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 115 responses total. |
russ
|
|
response 35 of 115:
| 
Feb 10 12:54 UTC 2004 |
I predict that the proposal-barrage by jp2 will result in
many people (including some board members) forgetting his
items and only taking notice if something comes to a vote,
so they can vote it down.
Kind of like chronic abusers in party getting the :forget treatment.
|
remmers
|
|
response 36 of 115:
|
Feb 10 13:12 UTC 2004 |
I voted for the proposal the first time too. So it lost. Far from the
first time I've been on the losing side. When I lose, I try to be a
good sport about it and move on.
If jp2 insists on bringing this misguided rerun to a vote, I think that
the result will be a mechanism that prevents misguided reruns.
|
jp2
|
|
response 37 of 115:
|
Feb 10 13:16 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
ryan
|
|
response 38 of 115:
|
Feb 10 14:18 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 39 of 115:
|
Feb 10 14:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 40 of 115:
|
Feb 10 16:17 UTC 2004 |
I remember this same argument coming up when the question of closing the
censor log was brought up for the second time.
|
ryan
|
|
response 41 of 115:
|
Feb 10 19:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
ryan
|
|
response 42 of 115:
|
Feb 10 19:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 43 of 115:
|
Feb 10 21:19 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 44 of 115:
|
Feb 10 22:02 UTC 2004 |
Actually, there are two different classes: GreXers who know they are right
and do something about it, and GreXers who know they are right but sit around
and take the shit from the first category.
|
bookie
|
|
response 45 of 115:
|
Feb 11 01:24 UTC 2004 |
Seems to me ONE vote should suffice. This effort is of the 'keep bringing it
up until it passes' category.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 115:
|
Feb 11 03:59 UTC 2004 |
That's what people said about the censor log, too. And that did pass
after a couple of iterations.
|
rational
|
|
response 47 of 115:
|
Feb 11 04:13 UTC 2004 |
jp2's right.
|
styles
|
|
response 48 of 115:
|
Feb 11 04:38 UTC 2004 |
#34: HOW CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 49 of 115:
|
Feb 11 06:47 UTC 2004 |
resp:34 I'll have a pina colada jellybean.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 50 of 115:
|
Feb 11 07:07 UTC 2004 |
i think they're the pink ones, here.
|
naftee
|
|
response 51 of 115:
|
Feb 11 14:01 UTC 2004 |
Rosemary and burgundy
|
styles
|
|
response 52 of 115:
|
Feb 12 02:05 UTC 2004 |
"what are you doing?"
"merchandising."
|
happyboy
|
|
response 53 of 115:
|
Feb 12 08:02 UTC 2004 |
is she a NERD?
|
naftee
|
|
response 54 of 115:
|
Feb 12 15:10 UTC 2004 |
VEgan!
|
jp2
|
|
response 55 of 115:
|
Feb 13 14:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 56 of 115:
|
Feb 13 14:47 UTC 2004 |
I think it would be outrageous to put a time limitation on the other users'
decision (assuming they're available for notification) to scribble their own
responses. Therefore I'd want a scribble/restore decision from all
contributors before this could be implemented - no time limit.
|
ryan
|
|
response 57 of 115:
|
Feb 13 14:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 58 of 115:
|
Feb 13 15:05 UTC 2004 |
And scott is (best I can tell) saying that before the items could be
restored, all the users who posted in it should post their choice of
whether their responses should be delted or restored, with no time
limit on doing so. No items would be restored until all authors
have given instructions relating to their own responses.
|
davel
|
|
response 59 of 115:
|
Feb 13 15:13 UTC 2004 |
Yep. In fact, that's actually demanded by the principles jp2 claims to hold.
If people's words should not be posted without their prior, explicit consent,
then reposting responses without that consent may not be done.
|