tsty
|
|
response 116 of 120:
| 
Feb 25 11:22 UTC 1997 |
re 114 ..."should," i agree. "required" was not the "intent" until
after kerouac/richard nominated me and i chose to become a member, again,
if elected. also, the official membership records of grex will prove
conclusively that i *was* a "member of grex before running forthe board."
at the very instant of the election, i was not. even mdw objected
to that particular form of discrimination (someting about a shame that
someone would be ineligible due to a late-mailed/delivered check).
are there even two of the founders who would conceive of me not
living up to a promise/pledge? <there might be one, i dunno>
are there even two logins who, having some knoweldge of *me*, would
even conceive of me not paying in full for the duration (at least)
of the term of office? <there might be one, i dunno> remember, i pledged
not only that, but that pre-payment might even be a reasonable approach.
it is emminently clear that "intent" is only what is currently
fashionable, for the moment.
|
tsty
|
|
response 119 of 120:
|
Mar 2 10:41 UTC 1997 |
re #117 .. that was the largest public argument, whether or not i had
given enough money recently to be 'eligible to be considered.'
...and i probably *had*, but i didnt call it membership $$. and, i just
kept quiet about it. further, the 'generality' existed until narrow-
mindedness struck.
|