|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 115 responses total. |
happyboy
|
|
response 75 of 115:
| 
Feb 19 10:20 UTC 2004 |
heh..."stupod"
yeah, stink-0!
|
twinkie
|
|
response 76 of 115:
|
Feb 19 20:44 UTC 2004 |
Bappy, is this you?
http://www.doesitsuck.net/grex/bappy.jpg
|
rational
|
|
response 77 of 115:
|
Feb 19 21:24 UTC 2004 |
doesitsuck.net?! haha! twinkie brings out the big guns! Hahaha! It's that
picture! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Take a ribbon!
|
tod
|
|
response 78 of 115:
|
Feb 19 22:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 79 of 115:
|
Feb 20 01:07 UTC 2004 |
SUPPORT THE CAUSE
|
jp2
|
|
response 80 of 115:
|
Feb 23 23:35 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 81 of 115:
|
Feb 23 23:39 UTC 2004 |
(What is the final text, jp2?)
|
jp2
|
|
response 82 of 115:
|
Feb 24 00:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 83 of 115:
|
Feb 24 01:01 UTC 2004 |
234
|
jp2
|
|
response 84 of 115:
|
Feb 25 13:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 85 of 115:
|
Feb 25 14:11 UTC 2004 |
Yep.
|
remmers
|
|
response 86 of 115:
|
Feb 25 17:52 UTC 2004 |
Was away for a few days; back now.
Just to be clear - you want this voted on, and #55 contains
the final wording?
|
jp2
|
|
response 87 of 115:
|
Feb 26 02:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 88 of 115:
|
Feb 26 02:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 89 of 115:
|
Feb 26 03:13 UTC 2004 |
Has anyone expressed an interest in endorsing this proposal?
(I know that's not relevant [yet], but it would be interesting to
see if 10% of the membership would endorse it.)
|
rational
|
|
response 90 of 115:
|
Feb 26 03:14 UTC 2004 |
that ten eper cent endoursement thing will ruin grex's culture. just watch
it.
|
tod
|
|
response 91 of 115:
|
Feb 26 04:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 92 of 115:
|
Feb 26 04:36 UTC 2004 |
I'm not a member, but I endorse the proposal.
|
remmers
|
|
response 93 of 115:
|
Feb 26 16:01 UTC 2004 |
Re #88: Send me mail when you've got a final wording and are ready
to proceed.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 94 of 115:
|
Feb 26 17:58 UTC 2004 |
If endorsement were required, I wouldn't gime mine to this "try #2".
If this comes to a vote, I would recommend a "NO" vote.
|
remmers
|
|
response 95 of 115:
|
Feb 28 14:57 UTC 2004 |
Jamie requested that this move to a vote with #55 as the wording,
so voting will start at midnight tonight.
|
salad
|
|
response 96 of 115:
|
Feb 28 19:46 UTC 2004 |
Okeydoke
|
albaugh
|
|
response 97 of 115:
|
Feb 29 07:04 UTC 2004 |
I recommend a NO vote on this proposal, even though I recommended a yes vote
to the same thing the first time. The members spoke, pretty convincingly so,
and there is nothing new to decide about this.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 98 of 115:
|
Mar 2 06:24 UTC 2004 |
It's too bad that this group doesn't operate under Roberts Rules of Order.
It would be out of order to call for the same vote twice in a row in
the same session (which would have to be defined). However a member of the
assembly (members) could move to reconsider the vote. This takes a majority
to pass. In addition, the person that moves to reconsider *must have voted
on the prevailing side* in the original vote. All this would, I think, have
stopped this second vote on the same motion.
|
rational
|
|
response 99 of 115:
|
Mar 2 12:57 UTC 2004 |
It's not the same motion.
|