response 204 of 299:

Aug 30 09:58 UTC 2002

fag.

response 206 of 299:

Aug 30 12:57 UTC 2002

Re #183: I think the resistance to change isn't a matter of elitism.  I
think it's more that Grex has done pretty well with things as they are.
That makes people reluctant to change things willy-nilly.

Re #184: I think people were pretty willing to consider non-local board
members, at first.  What got them annoyed was the constant accusations that
because we hadn't immediately made this change, or because some people had
concerns about it, we're all a bunch of elitists and xenophobes.  What did
you expect?  Of *course* people got defensive and stubborn once the
name-calling started.  Once that happened the chance for reasonable debate
pretty much ended.

This is a recurring technique for jp2 and a few other people.  If they don't
get their way immediately, they try to force the issue by trying to bully
people with accusations of discrimination, bogus legal issues, or threats to
pull their memberships.  Hint: Those tactics don't work here.  Maybe they
work on mnet, I wouldn't know.  But they're a very quick way to turn people
off on Grex, and eliminate any support you might have had.

response 208 of 299:

Aug 30 13:43 UTC 2002

I had a much longer post, but I've changed my mind.  I'm done posting.  
I already know my opinion on the subject, and have stated it online.  
This is going around in cricles, and I consider this item, though not 
the issue, usless.  No one's really listening to each other anymore.

response 210 of 299:

Aug 30 14:32 UTC 2002

        Of course "discrimination" is involved.  I couldn't imagine that the
board of directors of any organization would not discriminate on the basis,
say, of candidates for the board being over six months of age.  Ignore that
most people say "discrimination" when they mean "discrimination on the basis
of gender" - which is reprehensible as a hiring criterion but quite reasonable
when it comes to designing bathrooms - or "discrimination on the basis of
race".  Since everyone is in agreement about what the criterion is here, and
understands that it makes some people ineligible, then it's a non-issue to
call it "discrimination".

        Perhaps what you meant to say is "unfair discrimination", though that
does raise the responsibility of explaining what you feel is fair, and why
you feel it is not.

response 212 of 299:

Aug 30 14:49 UTC 2002

I'm pretty sure Jazz is smarter than you give him credit for. Stop the 
nonsense.

response 214 of 299:

Aug 30 15:12 UTC 2002

        Unfortunately, Sapna, I don't think you have my meaning -
"discrimination", though the word is often used to mean something bad, isn't
inherently bad.  It's often quite necessary.  Saying people are being
"discriminated against" is rhetoric, therefore, not logic.

response 216 of 299:

Aug 30 15:45 UTC 2002

What he's saying is that someone who is currently a member needs to 
make a formal motion as stated in the bylaw.

response 218 of 299:

Aug 30 16:00 UTC 2002

<hugs scott>

response 220 of 299:

Aug 30 16:41 UTC 2002

fag.

response 222 of 299:

Aug 30 17:07 UTC 2002

All eligible members may vote.

response 226 of 299:

Aug 30 17:46 UTC 2002

This is getting absolutely ridiculous.  And that's supposed to have 
gull acknowledge what?  "They started it" hardly helps this discussion. 
Not only that, but we all have to take responsibility for our own 
actions.  Person A's dissmissive attitidue doesn't exactly give person 
B carte Blanch to be rude and belittling to C.

From the website.

Cyberspace Communications functions as an online democracy, with 
policies set by its users. Formally, we are governed by a board of 
directors elected by our members, but we have a tradition of operating 
very much by a consensus. Topics are always publicly discussed in the 
Co-op conference before being voted on by the board, and the board is 
very reluctant to decide on anything until a strong consensus has 
emerged in the conference. In addition, any member can call a vote by 
the membership on any subject, and the board has no power to overrule 
the results of such votes. Changes to the bylaws can only be made by 
votes of the membership. 

I'm not going to say how many people have been trying to bring this 
point across.