response 104 of 186:

Dec 3 21:24 UTC 2003

Making Grex dues affordable to people whose cost of living is hugely 
less than the average American cannot be a goal for us.  We have to 
set a donation level which both allows us to meet out expenses and 
keeps the work involved in managing the system down to a manageable 
level for a committed volunteer.  (In case you didn't catch it, that 
last bit means lower price/greater volume for international 
memberships is not a reasonable tradeoff for our system.)

re #103:  Technically correct, but it was his own idiocy that 
created that reality.

response 106 of 186:

Dec 3 21:41 UTC 2003

102:  Yes, that's a typo in post 101.  

104:  Yes, but making it more affordable to average Americans can be a goal.

response 108 of 186:

Dec 3 22:04 UTC 2003

I don't have a chip.  I merely have a low level of tolerance for 
people who make it a point to be as assinine and annoying as 
possible.  Jamie came to Grex that way, and shows no significant 
sign of abating, despite superficial appearances to the contrary.

I'm beginning to wonder if naftee/dah/polytarp/willcome aren't all 
his aliases merely to allow himself the freedom to vent while he 
tries to attach an image of legitimacy to jp2.

response 110 of 186:

Dec 3 22:25 UTC 2003

Re #103: A fair point, that he can't enter the data now.  I'm assuming he
will as soon as he gets the chance.  It's also disingenuous to say you've
"demonstrated" something via a survey which wasn't scientific and whose
results haven't been posted yet, don't you think? 

I apologize if it sounds like I'm picking nits or being obstructionist.  I
don't mean to be.  I'm more than a little puzzled by how Jamie could have
gotten a math degree when he uses the words "prove" and "demonstrate" with
virtually nothing to back them up.  One of the things mathematics should
teach you is that those words have very precise meanings.

response 112 of 186:

Dec 3 22:41 UTC 2003

Well, we're talking about reality.  At least, most of us are.

response 114 of 186:

Dec 3 23:59 UTC 2003

Re 108> It's more like you have no tolerance for anyone who disagrees or
brings up arguments. Sure Jamie has argued about a lot of things, some of them
a waste of time. But he's never vandalised bbs, and I use that term lightly
(vandalism is willcome's "spam" all over agora in my book). All he's done is
argue and been not-so-deferential to the grexers.

This whole election campaign has proved one thing. You guys are never going
to get over the fact that someone dared to question policy. A lot of the posts
in this campaign and the other related items smack of personal dislike rather
than actual flaws. You might think that you guys are winning, but really you
are jsut running around in circles agreeing with each other, rather than
looking at facts. Whatever, I guess the majority wins here.

And Jamie, I'm not sure whether you are taking this election seriously. I
personally believe that you could be a great addition, especially when it
comes to making grex more visible (whatever visibility it can get in this day
and age) and possibly getting more members and contributions. you may be able
to bring about some necessary change in the way Grex is governed also. But
one thing you haven't learnt is that more elections are won through diplomacy
and tact rather than on legalities (or stuffing the ballot-box) And you don't
have that. If you plan to get on teh board of any organizatrion you bet you
need to get the people to like you, and maybe even respect you. And you've
done neither here. Maybe just for that you do deserve to lose. Which is a
shame, because I would like to see you on board.

And don't even get me started on the hypocricy. A few weeks ago a staffer was
rapped on the knuckles for locking out an account of a person who was causing
actual trouble deliberately, with no good intentions. Apparently he was too
"harsh" in punishment. Yet, at this point you people won't bat an eye when
Jamie's account gets locked out, never mind that it wasn't an act of
maliciousness. 

I've had my say. You may go back to living in your little grex world and Jamie
in his world where he wins an election on a technicality.

response 116 of 186:

Dec 4 00:30 UTC 2003

Re #114: Sapna: who do you mean when you say "you guys"?

response 118 of 186:

Dec 4 00:39 UTC 2003

I think she can speak for herself.

response 120 of 186:

Dec 4 01:20 UTC 2003

There is more to grex than the conference system.  Making the system unusable,
as a user has reported jp2 did, is abuse of grex.

response 122 of 186:

Dec 4 01:28 UTC 2003

I meant a majority of the "old school grex" that are still around. You may
pretend you want new blood and new users and new members. but really, you
aren't willing to change. You get your backs up when something is questioned,
make excuses about why things are the way they are, and when no excuse is
available try to pass it off (and successfully so) because the person who
brought it up isn't a well-liked person. It's almost as if all of you are hand
in glove with each other.

I realise that this isn't how all the old schoolers feel. I've seen a few out
there that actually seem to show some sense of fairness. So maybe there is
hope. But most of them seem to be uncomfortable when anyone else apart from
their clique suggest something or seem to want to break into their little
circle.

Maybe it is just the way I (and a few others) perceive the situation to be.
But if this is the perception we have, maybe there is a problem? Maybe not
in the fact that a problem actually exists but in how people have been
presenting their views. Again you may not agree. Fine. It is your system. run
it the way you think fit.

response 124 of 186:

Dec 4 02:08 UTC 2003

See, aruba?  Told you so. 

Whore.

response 126 of 186:

Dec 4 02:28 UTC 2003

Re 122:  I don't think you've seen a regular argument here before.  We've had
them, including some really serious ones like anonymous web reading of the
conferences.  The difference between then and now is that there weren't people
spamming users.s

response 128 of 186:

Dec 4 07:49 UTC 2003

Speaking as a former board member, former staff member, and occasional lurker
on the staff mailing list, I'm disapointed about how this was handled. 
Jamie's aproach to senidng out the mail was probably wrong, but this was the
case of a known reasonable person who presumably could have been talked to,
rather than jumped on like a vandal.  In fairness to the staff members
involved, this does appear to have been largely a case of miscommunication.

I do hope Jamie gets elected, although I'm not a member at the moment and thus
can't vote for him.  I don't agree with Jamie on a lot of stuff, but I think
he would bring a different perspective to the board that would be quite
useful.

I'm also particularly mistified about the venom with which Eric (other) has
been going after Jamie and others who he disagrees with.  Eric used to be
quite a nice guy, so I'm not sure what's changed in the last few years.  At
this point, whenever I read Eric's comments I find myself really wishing I
hadn't.