|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 115 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 9 of 115:
| 
Feb 9 19:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 10 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:12 UTC 2004 |
I'd strongly oppose a bylaw amendment which specified a period of time
between repeat propositions or propositions which are effectively
repeats. I would, however, support one which gave the voteadm
discretion, subject to review by the board in the event of complaint,
to not bring to vote any proposal the voteadm considers to have been
proposed spuriously or with intent to annoy rather than to reasonably
effect change.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 11 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:14 UTC 2004 |
I too would rather that jp2 hadn't re-created this proposal verbatim.
However, s/he is within his/her rights to do so, certainly more than the
item killer. But I recommend a NO vote to this, should it ever come to
a vote. The membership has spoken, and it's time to move on, get over it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 12 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 13 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 14 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 15 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:41 UTC 2004 |
Suggested modification:
|
jp2
|
|
response 16 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:42 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
robh
|
|
response 17 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:43 UTC 2004 |
I'm willing to vote "no" on this proposal at least as many times as
jp2 is willing to propose it. (I can actually envision it becoming
a ritual, continued long after everyone has forgotten what the items
were about... Hey, this could be the start of a new religion!)
|
twinkie
|
|
response 18 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:44 UTC 2004 |
It is much easier to read, though.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:46 UTC 2004 |
Thanks! Readability was a chief concern, and I worked long and hard
into^H^H^H^H on it.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 20 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:50 UTC 2004 |
Re. 0: !!!
|
albaugh
|
|
response 21 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:52 UTC 2004 |
I have nothing to suggest as to rewording. This is a clone of the proposal
which failed, which did not do so due to lack of clarity. It failed because
enough members looked but didn't buy. There will be no binge buying on the
same merchandize.
|
jp2
|
|
response 22 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:53 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 23 of 115:
|
Feb 9 21:05 UTC 2004 |
jp2, let's practice getting a grip, shall we?
|
jp2
|
|
response 24 of 115:
|
Feb 9 21:07 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 25 of 115:
|
Feb 9 21:50 UTC 2004 |
I'm willing to become a member to vote yes on this proposal.
($$$$$$$$$$)
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 115:
|
Feb 9 23:05 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 27 of 115:
|
Feb 9 23:31 UTC 2004 |
think of the money -- $$$$$
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 28 of 115:
|
Feb 9 23:58 UTC 2004 |
resp:25 I'm almost willing. (I'm just cheap, and poor.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 29 of 115:
|
Feb 10 00:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 30 of 115:
|
Feb 10 01:07 UTC 2004 |
Right; no votes are required to bring the matter to a vote.
|
md
|
|
response 31 of 115:
|
Feb 10 01:07 UTC 2004 |
Jamie, sooner or later you're gonna have to face the fact that your
resolution got voted down because you're the one who proposed it.
Silly and irrational but no different than US political elections,
which always end up being popularity contests. I think it's healthy
for you to learn this lesson again (and again, and again), so I hope
the Grexers That Be will allow your new resolution to stand.
|
jp2
|
|
response 32 of 115:
|
Feb 10 01:17 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 33 of 115:
|
Feb 10 01:53 UTC 2004 |
The sad thing is, all they did was show SPAM works. Now THAT'S a punishment!
|