|
Grex > Oldcoop > #76: member initiative: do not restore two items | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 316 of 357:
| 
Jan 27 18:52 UTC 2004 |
Thanks greemers!
|
jep
|
|
response 317 of 357:
|
Jan 28 03:28 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.
John, please go ahead and start this vote. Thanks!
|
remmers
|
|
response 318 of 357:
|
Jan 28 11:56 UTC 2004 |
Okay, I'll start the vote tonight.
|
naftee
|
|
response 319 of 357:
|
Jan 28 22:34 UTC 2004 |
Rock on fremmerS!
|
remmers
|
|
response 320 of 357:
|
Jan 29 02:20 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 321 of 357:
|
Jan 29 02:23 UTC 2004 |
Thank you, remmers. My votes have now been cast. :)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 322 of 357:
|
Jan 29 19:46 UTC 2004 |
I strongly urge a *NO* vote on this proposal. I have seen no good reason why
jep's items should be treated any differently than valerie's. Since there
seems to be agreement that all of jep's responses will be scribbled for him
before his unkilled items are publicly made available, things will be set
straight for him to do what he should have done, what he was already allowed
to do, before the unauthorized item killing (namely scribble and retire).
|
keesan
|
|
response 323 of 357:
|
Jan 29 20:11 UTC 2004 |
I would have liked the proposal to include the option of other posters also
scribbling their responses before the item was restored since those responses
seem to be worrying jep and most posters would have agreed to this.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 324 of 357:
|
Jan 29 20:14 UTC 2004 |
I voted yes on this proposal.
|
jep
|
|
response 325 of 357:
|
Jan 29 22:07 UTC 2004 |
I, of course, also voted yes on this proposal.
There is no compelling reason for the items to be restored. They won't
be any good to anyone. There has been very little, if any, harm from
them being deleted. I don't think anyone would have ever noticed they
were gone if I'd had the power to delete them on my own, unless I said
something. They were last written to two years ago.
On the other hand, having them gone has been considerably relieving to
me, aside from the time, energy and stress of dealing with them again
at all.
There were no tools for mass deleting one's own responses at the time
that these items were removed. I'm knowledgeable about Unix, but not a
good scripter or programmer. I could have gone through thousands of
responses and deleted them one at a time, and hoped I didn't drawn
attention to the items before I was done... that really wasn't
practical.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 326 of 357:
|
Jan 29 22:14 UTC 2004 |
Yes, but now that you've been promised a mechanism to delete your words, why
are you so hellbent on censoring the words of others?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 327 of 357:
|
Jan 29 22:19 UTC 2004 |
Just vote NO!
|
remmers
|
|
response 328 of 357:
|
Jan 29 23:02 UTC 2004 |
(I voted no.)
|
naftee
|
|
response 329 of 357:
|
Jan 30 01:50 UTC 2004 |
Thank you, remmers and albaugh.
|
jep
|
|
response 330 of 357:
|
Jan 30 02:23 UTC 2004 |
re resp:326: I have written at great length and with great patience
about my request, my decision and my reasoning. I don't think I have
any more to say.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 331 of 357:
|
Jan 30 02:29 UTC 2004 |
THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP< FATTY
|
mary
|
|
response 332 of 357:
|
Jan 30 09:57 UTC 2004 |
I voted no.
|
witzbolt
|
|
response 333 of 357:
|
Jan 30 10:17 UTC 2004 |
I voted "yes".
|
jep
|
|
response 334 of 357:
|
Jan 30 16:02 UTC 2004 |
Thanks very much to all who have voted "yes" on my proposal. I
appreciate it very much.
|
keesan
|
|
response 335 of 357:
|
Jan 30 16:48 UTC 2004 |
Aren't you supposed to be buying us all whisky if we even show up to vote?
|
tod
|
|
response 336 of 357:
|
Jan 30 18:49 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 337 of 357:
|
Jan 30 19:11 UTC 2004 |
Sindi, I didn't know you were a whiskey drinker. Yes, I can supply
Bushmill's to anyone who shows up at my home to vote.
|
tod
|
|
response 338 of 357:
|
Jan 30 19:29 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 339 of 357:
|
Jan 30 20:18 UTC 2004 |
Jep knows I am joking. I drink water, juice, or milk, usually water.
If we show up at jep's home in the next month by bike I will drink whisky.
Or even water from the local swimming hole if we can crack the ice.
|
jep
|
|
response 340 of 357:
|
Jan 30 21:16 UTC 2004 |
Todd, you are welcome at my house any time.
|