You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   185-209 
 210-234   235-259   260-284   285-309   310-334   335-359   360-384   385-409   410-424 
 
Author Message
25 new of 424 responses total.
jp2
response 210 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 17:36 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

jp2
response 211 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 17:40 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

other
response 212 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 17:47 UTC 2004

Each proposal must be weighed on its own merits and implemented 
within the context of the state of reality at the time it is passed.

If the wording of one proposal is mooted by the wording of another, 
then so be it.  The later proposal has the advantage of being 
modifiable after the earlier is set in stone and being voted upon.  
The proposals do not carry any weight however, until they are 
successfully passed.
jp2
response 213 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 17:50 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

jep
response 214 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 18:14 UTC 2004

Jamie, I am not going to drop my proposal.

Your point #4 isn't relevant to my proposal, you know.

I've offered a clear way to avoid any ambiguity, any conflict between 
the two proposals, and to put the issues to the users in the most 
straightforward way.  I don't see any advantage to anyone in making it 
confusing.  I don't see any reason why we can't disagree but be 
collegial.  I'm not willing to give up my proposal just to get along, 
though.
jp2
response 215 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 18:20 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

jp2
response 216 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 18:25 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

cmcgee
response 217 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 18:51 UTC 2004

It is possible for members to defeat this proposal, and have none of its
suggestions go into effect.  Just vote no.
aruba
response 218 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 19:14 UTC 2004

I agree.
jp2
response 219 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 19:31 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

gelinas
response 220 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 19:57 UTC 2004

There are several things embodied in this proposal.  Because it is
presented as "all, or nothing", it leaves us with no way to accept the
good without also accepting the bad.  In my opinion, the good it does is
not worth the bad it does.
jp2
response 221 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 20:36 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

mary
response 222 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 21:17 UTC 2004

Unless you keep it very short and focused on just
the restoration of the deleted items I suspect this
vote won't get much support at all.

gull
response 223 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 21:21 UTC 2004

I'm also not happy with section 4.  I really don't like the idea of
voting to limit what I have the right to vote about later.
jp2
response 224 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 21:21 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

jp2
response 225 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 21:22 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

mary
response 226 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 22:12 UTC 2004

Just keep section three.
tod
response 227 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 22:37 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

albaugh
response 228 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 23:05 UTC 2004

Here is all proposal #76 says:

I wish to make a user proposal that my two items recently deleted by
 loginid valerie not be restored.

Since without passage of #75 I don't see anyone moving to restore jep's items
even if his proposal fails, I believe the practical outcome is this:

#75 passes and #76 passes - only valerie's items are restored
#75 passes and #76 fails  - all items are restored
#75 fails                 - no items are restored

Can we agree to that?
tod
response 229 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 23:31 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

naftee
response 230 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 23:44 UTC 2004

If no items are restored, does this mean the content on GreX's website
regarding free speech will have to be modified?  I think we should consider
that.
gelinas
response 231 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 23:46 UTC 2004

Section 2 is irritating.  It is unnecessary vebiage.  (Section 1 is also
unnecessary vebiage, but it is not as irritating as Section 2.)  Section 4
is bad policy.
jp2
response 232 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 21 23:47 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

gelinas
response 233 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 22 00:06 UTC 2004

I can live with Section 5.
gull
response 234 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 22 00:32 UTC 2004

Re resp:228: Makes sense to me.  I think that's the most logical way to
approach it.
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   185-209 
 210-234   235-259   260-284   285-309   310-334   335-359   360-384   385-409   410-424 
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss