Re: STRAWPOLL: Who would have voted for me...

"kat" <littlelionne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7ppd62F69jU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I never said otherwise.

You were called on your words above - "If you don't like the candidate
list, then maybe you should have..." etc. Quite simple, by the time
people "didn't like the candidate list" they weren't able to do all that
stuff - it was too late.

Mostly, we don't assume the worst, even these days. Mostly, we still
expect people to act in an honourable way. How many of the decent and
reasonable people here would even think of something like this? This
wasn't about the one spare place - they only needed one candidate for
that. It's quite possible had only one of them stood, all this fuss
wouldn't have been made. But this was about an attempt to take over ( if
you insist in talking about majorities, 4 people causing hassle on the
list could work their way ) and it was done in a sneaky way. Shot
themselves in the foot of course, because the electorate didn't like it.

There's nothing dishonourable about standing for committee, whether it's one
or four people for one or four places.

As I said at the time, and has been pointed out in this thread, the reason
they could do what they did was that was that other people couldn't be
bothered to stand. There was utter apathy going on, all in the assumption
that it would work out ok. The second part of "The price of freedom is
eternal vigilance" wasn't happening.

The number of them standing made no difference apart from giving the
electorate a choice - I'm guessing you'd rather they'd done as they did than
eg just had IanJ standing?

If it was an attempt at a takeover, that bit wasn't sneaky - there were
already three candidates who had served on the committee and not made a
cockup of things, so there would always be sufficient competition to ensure
that any takeover would have been deserved. (ie if the four had won, they'd
have had a _really_ impressive hustings). The results demonstrate that there
wasn't any ballot stuffing or similar irregular practices going on, which is
the only way the results would have been any different.

This entire thread is a disappointment to me. It's demonstrating that the
people arguing in favour of Mr Ross's suggestion or indeed suggesting it has
any merit whatsoever care more about the politics than the uk.* hierarchy.
It would be more honourable if you were to put this matter behind you and
get on with life with Matthew.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NBC: Question For The Lawyers
    ... I have no idea what the internal rules of the ABA Standing Committee ... The criteria that the Senate follows is unknown, ... implicates, of course, the right to "withhold consent." ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: STRAWPOLL: Who would have voted for me...
    ... Clive George said ... There's nothing dishonourable about standing for committee, ... It was "kat" to whom you replied and had quoted. ...
    (uk.net.news.management)
  • Re: STRAWPOLL: Who would have voted for me...
    ... There's nothing dishonourable about standing for committee, ... Google appears to be denying that message exists, ... Mm, interesting how badly they fared, maybe the electorate didn't like the ...
    (uk.net.news.management)
  • Re: UK Usenet Committee Elections 2009 - Confirmed Candidates
    ... , but on the whole it's gradually losing out to web fora, ... The uk.* committee does a useful job (even if there's not a vast ... since group creation/deletion is reasonably ... There seemed to be a bit of a shortage of people standing, ...
    (uk.net.news.management)
  • Re: Win32_Session.Create() ?
    ... I hope my suggestion helps, if you have any questions or concerns, please ... do not hesitate to let me know. ... I am standing by to help you. ... This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.wmi)