|
Grex > Coop11 > #256: Motion to reject ~usgov membership | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 18 new of 23 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 6 of 23:
| 
Apr 18 15:34 UTC 2001 |
Ditto on what davel said.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 7 of 23:
|
Apr 18 16:22 UTC 2001 |
I'm voting no on this one too. It is mean spirited, and unnecessary.
|
robh
|
|
response 8 of 23:
|
Apr 18 16:46 UTC 2001 |
Same as #7. Of course, being a supporter of unlimited free speech,
I respect the right to post unpopular motions here in Co-op. >8)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 9 of 23:
|
Apr 18 19:14 UTC 2001 |
Yep, I'd not pursue the motion, other, unless you fear that aruba or whoever
is going to process usgov's membership by disregarding existing policies.
|
gull
|
|
response 10 of 23:
|
Apr 18 19:46 UTC 2001 |
I think this motion is unnecessary, and sets a dangerous precident of
motions targeting specific users that people happen to dislike.
|
flem
|
|
response 11 of 23:
|
Apr 18 20:03 UTC 2001 |
I'll chime in with the opponents of this motion, adding this plea: Please,
please, whatever happens, pretty please with lots of fluffy pink sugar and
imitation marshmallow topping on top, let's not start in on the censored
log again, shall we?
|
mary
|
|
response 12 of 23:
|
Apr 18 20:37 UTC 2001 |
I love to see a grown man beg.
|
other
|
|
response 13 of 23:
|
Apr 18 22:14 UTC 2001 |
Let's keep this on topic, shall we.
I cannot stress strongly enough that my every instinct about this
situation says to stay as far away from it as possible, or Grex may not
live to regret it.
|
carson
|
|
response 14 of 23:
|
Apr 18 22:18 UTC 2001 |
(I don't think there are many here who would disagree with that sentiment,
Eric. however, I think most would quibble with your suggested method of
doing so.) ;)
|
swa
|
|
response 15 of 23:
|
Apr 19 04:19 UTC 2001 |
While the stereotypes of "the Left" jp2 brings up in resp:4 trigger the
usual automatic anger in me (does that make me a knee-jerk pissed-off
liberal?), I do feel that the trend on Grex more and more of late has
been to do things the way we've always done them, or the way we think Grex
culture should be, rather than to concentrate on doing the right and fair
thing. This makes me sad.
As for resp:13 -- yes, there are aspects of this which make me uneasy.
But I think singling out a specific user with a motion like this is
unnecessary and cruel. While I realize we're all only human, I do expect
my board members to be able to keep cool heads, or I wouldn't have voted
for them to represent Grex. When I see a board member doing something I
think is unfair and hostile, it saddens me even more than when I see
others do it, unfair though that may be.
I will be voting no on this motion, unless its author has the good sense
to withdraw it.
|
other
|
|
response 16 of 23:
|
Apr 19 05:12 UTC 2001 |
First of all, I would like to say that this motion was made by me as a
member. It does not require, nor does it reflect any action or position
I would take as a board member.
It is only because this issue has been brought to the attention of the
full membership and the public -- by request of user usgov -- that I have
taken this action. My primary purpose was not to be hostile nor to set a
precedent, but to crystallize opinion on the matter and find out how much
of the membership really have any sense of the risks this situation
presents.
I'd like to see further discussion by the full membership (or at least by
those who care enough to express an opinion) on the issues brought out by
this.
I would like to point out that unless the membership should decide to
change the membership requirements, this motion is, and was from its
inception, both irrelevant and redundant. If the membership is inclined
to change the membership requirements to allow usgov to obtain
membership, then that would likewise indicate that this motion would fail
anyway. This was a means to cut through the crap usgov is so
vociferously attempting to bury the real issues with. So far, it seems
to be working. (With the exception that jp2 is so full of that crap
already that he will never see his way clear, but that's another issue.
Kiss, kiss, Jamie.)
|
other
|
|
response 17 of 23:
|
Apr 19 05:18 UTC 2001 |
I would like to reiterate something which was mentioned at the board
meeting tonight (and is reflected in the minutes), which is that this
situation has brought to light some concerns about the extent to which
our membership policy as it stands complies with state of Michigan and
Federal regulations governing 501(c)3 organizations.
These concerns are being researched, and any relevant information which
suggests that a change is appropriate will be brought to the attention of
the membership in the context of a motion to modify the membership
policies to improve compliance.
|
jp2
|
|
response 18 of 23:
|
Apr 19 14:01 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 19 of 23:
|
Apr 19 14:33 UTC 2001 |
Re #15: Eh, don't feel bad. The "right" is no better. Note their flip
flop on China. (From opposing involvement in the past for moral
reasons, to encouraging it now for business reasons. Apparently moral
considerations are secondary to economic ones.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 20 of 23:
|
Apr 19 15:02 UTC 2001 |
If you lump people into categories as broad as "the left" or "the right" or
"Grexers", you're bound to be able to find someone in the category that you
don't like. That's probably *why* Jamie makes his categories so big.
|
remmers
|
|
response 21 of 23:
|
Apr 19 15:22 UTC 2001 |
This has all been blown up far bigger than it ever should have
been. The blame for that does not rest with "usgov" alone, by
any means.
As to the motion, I oppose it. I think that the issue can and
should be decided by applying Grex's existing policies.
|
dpc
|
|
response 22 of 23:
|
Apr 19 20:39 UTC 2001 |
I agree with remmers.
|
other
|
|
response 23 of 23:
|
Apr 19 22:33 UTC 2001 |
The motion is withdrawn. However, for purposes of further discussion, I
will leave the item open.
|