You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   265-289   290-314   315-339   340-364   365-389   390-414   415-424 
 
Author Message
25 new of 424 responses total.
jep
response 290 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 28 03:23 UTC 2004

I apologize for the confusion, but there was really no consensus a 
week ago on how this situation ought to be resolved.  It appears there 
is now.  That being the case, I have no objection to the voting on 
both items commencing.
remmers
response 291 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 28 11:56 UTC 2004

Okay, I'll start the vote tonight.
polytarp
response 292 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 28 13:54 UTC 2004

Thanks, remmers!
naftee
response 293 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 28 22:33 UTC 2004

THANKS jremmers!
remmers
response 294 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 02:19 UTC 2004

The polls are now open.  Type "vote" at a Unix shell prompt,
"!vote" just about anywhere else.  You get to choose which of 
the two propositions to vote on.  When done with your first
choice, you get to choose again.

You can vote more than once; your last vote overwrites any
previous one.  Therefore, it is appropriate to continue discussing
the proposal here during the voting period.
gelinas
response 295 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 02:23 UTC 2004

Thank you, remmers.  My votes have been cast. :)
polytarp
response 296 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 02:41 UTC 2004

I don't like the way proposal B is phrased.  It makes it seems as if it was
a typical staff action to delete items on request.
albaugh
response 297 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 19:43 UTC 2004

Even though I'm not excited about this whole affair, I guess I recommend a
"Yes" vote on this proposal.  That would ostensibly restore things to where
they were before the "unauthorized" item deletions took place.  I'm sorry that
staff will have to spend time on this should it pass, but that is not the
fault of the membership - the fault lies elsewhere.
jp2
response 298 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 20:06 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

cmcgee
response 299 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 20:13 UTC 2004

I voted no on this proposal.
jep
response 300 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 21:09 UTC 2004

I definitely don't agree with jp2 that the Grex staff has any contempt 
for the users.  I've never seen any indication that any of the users 
feel that way -- until jp2 said it.

Like cmcgee, I voted against this proposal.
jp2
response 301 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 21:25 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

cmcgee
response 302 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 21:26 UTC 2004

Logic and precedent are not the only criteria for making decisions.  One of
my favorte "Bill of Rights" lists is in a book on independent thinking.

VIII  You have the right to be illogical in making decisions.

A common way for people to manipulate others is by claiming that you cannot
do anything illogical.  They try to force you to go against your own values,
which may place a higher priority on relationships and feelings, by insisting
that you must  be "logical".    Logic and precident are simply -one- way to
make good decisions.  
polytarp
response 303 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 21:37 UTC 2004

ROckon, McGEe
jp2
response 304 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 22:04 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

cyklone
response 305 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 22:13 UTC 2004

"Personal favors for favored persons"
remmers
response 306 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 23:01 UTC 2004

I voted in favor of this.
gelinas
response 307 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 23:05 UTC 2004

May I draw your attention response 124, above?
gelinas
response 308 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 23:19 UTC 2004

Re 298: The membership is obviously divided on this question.  Is it really
any wonder that the staff is awaiting instruction from the membership?

It seems to me that the real contempt would be pre-empting the membership's
decision.
jmsaul
response 309 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 30 01:23 UTC 2004

Jamie, being a dick about it may convince some people to vote against your
proposal just to spite you.
jp2
response 310 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 30 01:27 UTC 2004

This response has been erased.

jmsaul
response 311 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 30 01:32 UTC 2004

I read it.
naftee
response 312 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 30 01:49 UTC 2004

Yeah it's about as polite as you can get.
aruba
response 313 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 30 03:27 UTC 2004

I voted "no" on this proposal.
mary
response 314 of 424: Mark Unseen   Jan 30 09:56 UTC 2004

I voted yes.
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   265-289   290-314   315-339   340-364   365-389   390-414   415-424 
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

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