Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision

From: graeme@discreet.co.uk (Graeme Griffiths)

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000

In <19970714193001.PAA13806@ladder01.news.aol.com> abbyi897@aol.com (Abby I897) writes:

>Greg Lindahl wrote:

>>There's a way to conduct Usenet voting. That wasn't it.

>If this thread has proven one thing, it has demonstrated how completely
>full of crap Greg Lindahl is....and how utterly clueless he appears to be
>to any reality beyond that which he defines for himself.

I disagree, if this thread has proved one thing its that aol users really
should read up on Usenet protocol before shooting their mouths off at an FAQ
maintainer.

>Greg SAYS he'll abide by the decisions and agreements this group makes
>collectively, but that only applies to any agreement that supports his
>personal position and proves him right.

This is your opinion (and IMO it is wrong).

>The proposal to change the FAQ was posted and voted on publicly to put an
>end to Greg's silly argument that a couple of moderators wanting something
>does not constitute a majority.  He did AGREE to change the FAQ if we all
>agreed to it - which we clearly have.

No we haven't, a posted vote is invalid because anyone with half a brain DID
NOT POST A VOTE.

>Now that we've demonstrated agreement on the subject of advertising, Greg
>says the vote doesn't count because we didn't follow his precious
>protocol.  Well, protocol doesn't work with Greg - he's demonstrated that
>to each and every person who has tried to debate this issue with him
>rationally.

I haven't witnessed anyone trying to debate this issues rationally except
(recently solIIGM, to whom I am eternally grateful for trying to get this
discussion back on line).

>He followed his agreement to change the FAQ with what many consider an
>inflammatory threat to flood the ng with ads for games on his list who do
>not speak for themselves.  I say, let him do it!  Who cares?  If I'm
>interested in a game, I could care less who posts the information that
>leads me to it.  If I'm not interested, I just don't click the mouse
>button over that particular thread.

You obviously don't pay for your news by volume then ! Please realise that
your set-up is not necessarily that of every other user (f'rinstance I don't
use a mouse and some of us <gasp> aren't using a PC....)

>The bottom line is nobody could reason with Greg privately - he can't hear
>anything that  doesn't agree with his personal version of reality.  When
>we took it public in an effort to demonstrate that we agree as a group
>that a change should be made, Greg went back on his word and fell back on
>yet another tired excuse that only convinces me he is a self-righteous,
>lying, and dishonorable person.

I really wish libel laws had precedent over the Internet...

>How proud Greg must be of the reputation he has created for himself in
>this ng.  Nobody did it to him - as he loves to imply.  So folks, it looks
>like no matter how much we all agree on this issue, Greg will continue to
>hear what he wants to hear, do what he wants to do, and tailor the "truth"
>to suit his own needs.

>What I find exceptionally funny is the fact that, while we can't force
>Greg to leave our group, he can't do a thing to stop us from using it as
>we see fit....as we collectively agree to use it.  So let him keep right
>on snipping.  I've had three toddlers to live with....what's one more
>toddler mentality?

Yep, yours. The other three must be proud to have you around.

>My apologies to rec.games.pbm subscribers for the tone of this message.  I
>am so exasperated that no matter what we do, it isn't the "magic
>combination"...and yet, when Greg KNOWS there is an issue at hand that
>requires a vote, why isn't HE proposing it if he wants it done a certain
>way?  I guess we all know the answer to that.  All of us, that is, except
>the one person who really SHOULD be hearing us.

Why can't you do it. Greg doesn't see the need to change the FAQ and has
support in this why would he then go to the trouble of holding a vote to see
if he should ?

See other post on this thread "CFD: Change in FAQ ads policy"

--
Graeme Griffiths - Discreet Logic (Newbury, UK)
Disclaimer: I do not speak for anyone but myself and I do that badly.
Mail: graeme@discreet.co.uk
Spam: All unsolicited mail will be reported, and billed for my time.

References

Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
abbyi897@aol.com (Abby I897)
Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PROPOSAL: Vote on FAQ Revision
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Wed, 09 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0000