response 20 of 79:

Feb 9 22:25 UTC 2004

Something else that's relevent to the proposal is the conspiracy underway to
pass it.

I recently received a copy of a transcript of a conversation held between its
proposer and Society of Members of Old GreX member John Remmers:

krj:       Hopefully I am creating the conditions so that my still-vague
          proposal gets voted on in the same time period as Jamie 2.0

This indicates a concerted effort to trick users into passing his proposal,
not because it's good and wholesome (fibrous and thus easier to pass), but
because, he thinks, GreXists don't like jp2.  remmers (user remmers) not only
agreed with this strategy, but, look at this:

remmers:  The main effect is likely to be passage of your proposal.  ;)

gave a wink (and, assuredly, a nod) to suggest that he would do almost
anything to see the proposal pass.

Why does the membership of New GreX stand for this nonsense?

response 22 of 79:

Feb 9 22:53 UTC 2004

#21 sounds reasonable and simple...

response 24 of 79:

Feb 9 22:58 UTC 2004

the board could be permitted to agree online or by email and thereby 
dispense with any vote that meets some minimum requirement of 
similarity with a prior proposal which failed by a substantial margin.

Still some definition required, but reasonable wiggle room to not be 
pinned to specific lines in the sand.

response 26 of 79:

Feb 9 23:00 UTC 2004

re resp:23: On-line voting can be done.  Or the president can collect 
votes by phone call, subject to confirmation by the Board members at 
the next meeting.

response 28 of 79:

Feb 9 23:38 UTC 2004

Without use of his right hand!

response 30 of 79:

Feb 9 23:46 UTC 2004

What about the parts where remmers and krj conspire to force the thing through
at all costs?!   DIDN"T ANYOEN READ THEM!?

response 32 of 79:

Feb 10 01:54 UTC 2004

So is constipation, per response #30.

response 34 of 79:

Feb 10 02:58 UTC 2004

Has anyone made a proposal yet that if a psychotic person with root
access, but no specific authority, destroys any posts and/or items those
posts/items must be automatically restored while discussion is pending?

response 36 of 79:

Feb 10 03:01 UTC 2004

There is a fundamental principle here:  If you don't trust the system's
administrators, don't use the system. 

Rules can be broken.  No amount of rules will prevent the rules being broken.

response 38 of 79:

Feb 10 03:20 UTC 2004

Yes, that has been made *QUITE* clear, thank you. And let me also add that
if for any reason I choose to continue to vist and/or post here, I *WILL*
be making copious copies for parody or whatever other reasons I may
decide. Feel free to spread that around. I mean, it wouldn't do to have
the val-types coming back a *second* time whining about how no one warned
them about us mnet meanies.  Ooops; if you did that wouldn't you "chill" 
the speech of your social misfits? Wow, tough choice. Oh well, sucks to be
you. 

Ya'll may think you won a battle, but you lost a much larger war.

response 40 of 79:

Feb 10 03:25 UTC 2004

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  You should spend less time
screaming and more time thinking, cyklone.  Take the time to READ what
_I've_ said here, in all of the items on the subject, and think about the
totality of its meaning, and see if you don't agree with me:  You really
should spend less time screaming and more time thinking.

response 42 of 79:

Feb 10 03:36 UTC 2004

Re #40: And if you think #38 was a "scream" you need to take the time to try
to understand what you are reading. Here's a hint: even though you and I do
agree on some things, when you see "ya'll" in something I've written that
means it's directed at grex as a whole, not at you. Capiche?