[ga-abuse] Personal attack and unsubstatiated accusation by Joe Kelsey

[Joop Teernstra <webmaster@imachination.com>]

*********
And I certainly do not trust the so-called "polling booth" that Joop
continues to push as being anything other than self-serving
aggrandizement by Joop, as the only evidence that his booth is fair was
the so-called votes of the so-called IDNO, which have been shown time
and again to have been severly tainted by Joop himself.
*************

I take severe exception to this unprovoked personal attack.

Posting details:
From: Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15186.6056.509440.638416@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 15:22:32 -0700
To: "\[ga\]" <ga@dnso.org>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair
In-Reply-To: <034101c10d79$ebb20180$b33efea9@hamza>
References: <025901c10d6e$212c4e80$b33efea9@hamza>
	<3B520225.E064358B@hermesnetwork.com>
	<034101c10d79$ebb20180$b33efea9@hamza>
X-Mailer: VM 6.92 under Emacs 20.7.1
Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
Precedence: bulk
X-UIDL: 382fdb4445bc48bb3154616d2310892e

Patrick Corliss writes:
  > On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:50:45 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
  > > I might be missing something here, but where are the "current
  > > procedures" mentioned above codified?  Further, if the Chair was to
  > > personally accept the proposed policy, would that make it a de
  > > facto GA institution?
  > (3) An alternative, already suggested, is to use Joop's polling booth
  > for the purpose.  Again, any discussion about voting procedures
  > should be conducted on the GA-RULES list.  For example, how should
  > people register to vote?  We really need to take things a step at a
  > time.

You make a blanket statement that discussion *must* take place on the
illegitimate ga-rules discussion list.  There can be no discussion of
anything involving material changes to the GA on any other mailing list
unless and until there is a formal vote and acceptance of such a motion
by the entire GA.  Your claim that "13 or 14" respondents agree with the
motion is insufficient evidence that it should be approved on sight.
And I certainly do not trust the so-called "polling booth" that Joop
continues to push as being anything other than self-serving
aggrandizement by Joop, as the only evidence that his booth is fair was
the so-called votes of the so-called IDNO, which have been shown time
and again to have been severly tainted by Joop himself.