[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
BANNED AT LIBERTYPOST
Title: Clarification requested if needed
To: tpaine Subject: Clarification requested if needed >> sysadmin-LP -- It has come to light that I may have misinterpreted some part of your offer. If so this was not intentional on my part, I was piecing together parts of several emails to arrive at a cogent description of the entire package.
----- I asked you in my 'offer' emails to post them at LP, because you refused to allow me to comment there. --- Instead, you pieced together parts, which in my opinion led to an non cogent description of the entire email exchange. >> Information short, what I gathered from your emails and what I have attempted to represent: --- Your accepting ownership of LP is contingent on the following conditions: --- 1. If 25% or more of LP active users indicate they do not want you as owner, (that is, do not vote for you) the offer is withdrawn and you do not accept ownership. (This logically translates to 75% approval. A vote for another option is counted toward the 25% figure.) ---- 2. You will not take ownership until a suitable moderator is selected with a 75% approval rate from LP members. --- (If you have been following the discussion thread on LP of course you already know this but I wanted to put it on the table as accurately as possible.) ------- I have been attempting (like others) to follow your comments on those threads, and and like the others, I find them confusing. Why don't you just post our original email exchange, in its entirety, and then try to explain why you decided to make this a complicated four choice election instead of simply asking the members if they wanted me as an owner? ----- If 25 individuals had voted no, that would have been the end of it for me. >> If I am mistaken in any of this please provide a precise statement of the contingencies which I will post in its entirety on your behalf. If there are any significant errors in my reporting of your offer I will publicly apologize for my error in interpretation and take whatever action is necessary to insure a fair vote, including invalidation of current votes and starting the process over if it comes to that. Despite our differences you made a bona fide offer and it is my desire to give you a fair shake. ------ sysadmin posted on 2015-01-12 9:11:42 ET -------- The way you put on a four part 'election' did not make it a fair shake for anyone, imho. --- But it did indicate that my ownership of the site was not acceptable for at least 25 out of the 100 or so active members. So be it... Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 26. Good Lord. For being such a massive windbag, you can't effectively communicate a simple point. Try paring down your novel by about 10,000 characters. Simplicity can be your friend. LP is dead anyway. All of your goofball pals will be over here soon laying this place to waste. Kind of funny that you were such a poor choice the place votes to commit Hari-Kari rather than have you in charge.
#19. To: Nexus6 (#18) Kind of funny that you were such a poor choice the place votes to commit Hari-Kari rather than have you in charge. Quit lying, liar.
#21. To: Fred Mertz (#19) Neil --- With 83 comments posted, I count 43 voters with the following breakdown. TPaine: 23 Perciles: 6 Status Quo: 24 Shutdown: 11
With supposedly 64? votes counted, 11 were for Hari-Kari. Hardly a consensus.
#23. To: tpaine (#21) Status quo was a no vote for you and a yes vote for sysadmin who expressed his desire pre and during the vote to close the place. You and Pericles combined couldn't get a bigger majority than shut it down. Apparently Americans don't like to be controlled by a foreign agitator in Pericles or a know it all windbag like you. Don't worry. You are here now and you can pontificate as much as you want. You will be liked and respected as much as you were over there.
#26. To: Nexus6, know it all windbag (#23) The ballot was rigged, and the counting was communist approval style. One voter could vote for three choices. The whole process is as crooked as the Willard M. Romney nomination in Tampa.
Replies to Comment # 26. The ballot was rigged, and the counting was communist approval style.
One voter could vote for three choices. The whole process is as crooked as the Willard M. Romney nomination in Tampa. Approval voting, if adopted nationwide, would be the single best thing that could ever happen to break up the 2 party monopoly. It's not a new thing either. www.electology.org/#!approval-voting/cc04 The current system, billed as a great thing for democracy, is far inferior.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 26. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|