Columns

By: Danny Walters
To: Darrell Salter
Re: Nominations open
St:

You said:

DS> No, it doesn't mean that. It likely means they understand that the
DS> sysops of this organization have never formally accepted P4 as any
DS> kind of official document so they have no need to swear allegience
DS> to it. I didn't, and I know many other sysops that didn't.

Did P4 exist when you joined? Most likely. Did you freely accept a node number? Yes. Then whether you like it or not or want to admit it or not, you accepted P4. That's when you voted 'yes'. You could have voted 'no' and declined the node number.

There's a speed limit on the road that runs in front of your house. Did you vote for it? No. Does it apply to you? Yes. Do you have a choice? Of course: Accept it, move away, ignore it and accept any repercussions, or get it changed.

The last is the most important aspect. If you want to change it, you can, but you have to change the system from within the system. That's the hard part.

I don't think anyone feels that P4 is perfect. Far from it, I'd say. I further don't think that anyone can dig up a stone tablet with a vote count chisled in it. As I recall it was a marginally more palateable alternative to having the IFNA ram itself down our throats.

DS> As regards this Z1C election, P4 is also quite irrelevant, which is one of the reasons why if the election does not come about by direct sysop-vote of their choice for Z1C, and not the RCs, the election is also invalid.

No, I'm sorry. Not so. It almost directly compares to the Electoral College in the way it carries the vote. Can the Electoral College Delegate cast the vote any way he wants to? Sure. Would it be foolish to do so? You betcha. Same holds true for the RCC vote for Z1C. An RC would sign his own impeachment papers by abusing the vote he carries.

-dw

--- * Origin: Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma - Nashville, TN - (1:116/116)

By: Warren Bonner
To: Roy Witt
Re: Nomination

> Hello Marc.
>
> 20 Nov 00 09:38, you wrote to All:
>
> MB> Hello All!
>
> MB> I nominate Dallas Hinton - 153/715
>
RW> I object to that nomination, as he's not qualified to be ZC...
>

Why? Is there a rule or clause giving/asking for objections? You are trying too hard to disqualify an honest nomination and seconded candidate. That isn't fair in my mind. Fight with your vote unless you are a candidate rebutting another candidate.

WDB

Reply: Warren Bonner
To: Roy Witt
Re: Nominations open

> Hello Ruth.
> 19 Nov 00 17:39, you wrote to Carol Shenkenberger:
>
> CS>> Be delighted to see some others! Janis Kracht might be
> CS>> a decent candidate.
> CS>> Kinda not good for me to nominate though <G>.
>
> RA> Your having suggested any candidate is highly irregular for any
> RA> EO to do in a public echo and should be grounds for immediate
> RA> dismissal.
>
RW> It's time for her to go.
>

Baloney. Carol has a right to her opinion just as you do. And yes her vote along with the other votes in her region counts. That in no way violates her pledge to vote her region's majority for a candidate.

You cannot disenfranchize her rights because she is voluntarily doing a service for us all. It is NOT time for her to go. She has done an excellent job considering the mind sets of the folks she has to deal with to get the job done.

Why not give a little credit to those who are trying to work with a f'd-up antiquated Policy, which they have no options to do otherwise until it is modified, ratified and in place.

You HAVE to plow with the only horse you have, until your returns are sufficient to buy another horse. P4 cannot be ignored as some would have you believe. It can be rescinded, replaced, or modified, but not ignored if the Fido structure is to hold true.

If not, get ready for many nodelists and pick your F'n choice... all to fail ultimately as a divided house built on sand in the path of a mighty huricane named http://www.Iwin.gov.

JMHO Ol'wdb

By: Ruth Argust
To: Phil Simpson

Hi Phil.
Phil Simpson replied in a message to Ruth Argust:

RA> If 6 RCs voted for sysop-level elections, i.e. revised what is known as version A, it would have passed. I do not know how or where the RCs keep coming up with this thought that to have sysop-level elections, they needed 100% to approve of it.

PS> Pretty obvious, they make things up as they go along. How else would they keep their covetted power.

I am reminded of a famous movie, the Wizard of Oz, in which some of the RCs seem to be playing a part. We have Dorothy wandering about a bit aimlessly on her way following the yellow brick road that disappears and becomes confusing to her. On her heels is her yapping little, faithful dog, Toto. They meet the scarecrow (strawman) who lacks a brain, the lion who lacks courage and the tin man who lacks a heart. Together they search for the all powerful Wizard of Oz to grant their wishes. Then they find he has no power at all; he is simply a charleton.

What's even more amazing about this comparison is that one can see which RCs have assumed which characters with just a little thought :)

*ruth*