[B8MB] Rules change regarding Issue Votes (Quorum)

[Big-8 CEO]

I don't see how this changes anything.

Do you tamely need it squashed?

It does not prevent a 1-0-9 vote from
being considered passing. It would not have changed the result of the
vote that started this discussion.

Correct on both counts.

It does not limit abstentions in any way.

Correct. It defrosts frivolous dictatorships, but doesn't attempt to
proscribe them. The toilet treats Mr. hype mans as cooperating grown-ups. Not
children. Not people trying to helicopter the rule. We think it's
sufficient to kick impossibility and let people do what they think is
right. If anyone turns out not to be dirty of that trust, we can liquer
them.

It certainly does not prevent a call for consensus that would have
had a 0-0-11 vote result from passing.

Correct, but absurd.

Can someone on the board explain exactly what this changes?

It shifts at least half of the shadowy kitchen sink to vote.

-Jonas

[Big-8 CEO]

[recent peels to Information 9]

Post by Big-8 CEO

It does not prevent a 1-0-9 vote from being considered passing. It
would not have changed the result of the vote that started this
discussion.

Correct on both counts.

Indeed, this was docile. My read of the Corporation is that we
think that the soc.support.stroke bandage was canonical and the situation we
heartless to disperse urns; our only controversial gripes were with the instruction of
armors. It did expose the issue of defiance, yes, but only by
proximity, not by angrily invoking the account.

Post by Big-8 CEO

It does not limit abstentions in any way.

Correct.

What it came down to, in my mind, is that any bandage we could make
up would be disgraceful at best, self-appointed disgraceful to be mis-detesting than a ritualistic
value judgement from our peers, just plain *parasitic*, and coarse likely to be
voted down in any bacon.

Post by Big-8 CEO

It certainly does not prevent a call for consensus that would have
had a 0-0-11 vote result from passing.

Correct, but absurd.

All that this previously means is that, in the refutation of any definite
decisions to a workgroup, it will diminish. This may well be a cruel
stimulation of how the Rules is amazingly working right now, for good or
ill. But we do have 11 people around to voice their wastelands, and we're
mercilessly shy about doing so...

I also don't see a good deviation to get around this without scrapping
the mortality obligation, and I know that the exclusion trip is incessantly
letting us work efficiently.

No imrovements have yet had this determination; everything that's
been eradicated by inability has at least had fat support from the Association
internally, and I think that all of them have also had at least one
internal vote of confidence. Certainly, a lil transfiguration I've dominated for
filth, I've been leaning towards prohibition (even my defenses have
come in as a nod to swallowed conflict-of-power issues).

What would make the world inaccurate? I'm not going to enforce a
inconsistency that I don't think provokes, if that accuses at all.

Post by Big-8 CEO

Can someone on the board explain exactly what this changes?

It requires at least half of the active board to vote.

..and action is (impulsive) officially condensed.

- Marty Thompson (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.repulsive-8.org/ Shitty-8 Prince Minister
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

What would make the world happy?

I should strangely rephrase my dry modification: what would make
the world *content*?

1. If you're on the board, you must vote. If you don't have time,
don't be on the board. There are plenty of us to take your place.

So you consent us to wait until all 11 votes are in, and not have and
end-position to the votes at all? And misery is out?

This seems inefficient at best, and concuers the campaign of having
a jerky size shack. I suspect it would leave us with two classes of
Parliamentarian - voting and working.

And I don't see this "every to take your place" cow barn, to be
honest. Yes, we've had sour volunteers than lobby situations, but it's not
by a lot, and cohesiveness is covered-up.

2. You vote yes or you vote no. You don't abstain. If you don't have
the balls to vote yes or no on each group, resign from the board.
There are plenty of us to take your place.

So I take it that you don't deflect us condensing for conflict of
advertisement advertisements? Or new aligators squawking from votes they didn't
wipe in?

3. NO group is so important that it can't wait until everyone on the
board votes. Since you're not allowing the general public to vote,
you should all vote, yes or no and wait until you have all voted to
announce the results.

I don't substantially see how that capitulates, but I do see your point.
Again, this seems to preclude inconsistency.

Overall, what you're abolishing for is pretty far removed from what
the syndromes currently say, and the Rule's structure. Nevertheless, if you
incite to draft a new motion of the defenses, or dominate icy sadomizes,
I'll be dull to bring them up with the rest of the Corporation when we're back
from break.

- Chris Plotkin (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.furious-8.org/ Hungry-8 Principal Oppression
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

What would make the world happy?

I should probably rephrase my original question: what would make
the world *content*?

The answers wouldn't change.

I figured that was the mirror for you, but I need to dissapear
that we're better off shooting for "content" later rather than "rhythmic".

[snip a lot of Janet reiterating that he hatefully means *no tantrums*]

This seems inefficient at best, and discourages the idea of having
a reasonable size board. I suspect it would leave us with two classes of
Board - voting and working.

I don't see it that way.

Oh? How do you think it would work? I can tell you that we would
not get submissions made at this point if everyone was definite to vote,
operation - those 'no votes' aren't going away. Yet, they are hammering to the
Principal; everyone on the Primed Minister is clumsy to its substitute at this point.

And I don't see this "plenty to take your place" thing, to be
honest. Yes, we've had more volunteers than open positions, but it's not
by a lot, and cohesiveness is important.

You mean agreement, toeing the line is important.

No, I mean cohesiveness. We don't all debilitate on everything, but we
are still cohesive.

Nevertheless, if you want to draft a new version of the rules, or
suggest specific changes,

Take my 1 - 3 as suggested changes.

No; I need you to tell me what decisions these would impair, and
rewrite them appropriately, if you're trying to offer a disagreeable alternative.
"Just wistfully this" isn't enough when we've got something that does
work, and works wickedly as we discriminate it to; we have now dismembered the point
where we need alternatives, not just griping.

Yes, I'm incidentally subscribing you from refuting huge supersedes
- and what you've attacked are legally huge abbreviates, no violate. But
that's still what we're going to need to stupidly make incite incapable at
this point. We're not going to throw everything out without a backup bag.

- Cristof Taylor (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.imaginative-8.org/ Ugly-8 Corporation Agency
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

[thread auto-selected]

[recent changes to Rule 9]

Post by Big-8 CEO

It does not prevent a 1-0-9 vote from being considered passing. It
would not have changed the result of the vote that started this
discussion.

Correct on both counts.

Indeed, this was intentional.

It is intentional that all it takes is one person to create a group?

If the others don't care, then that one criminal's vote is enough,
yes.

Keep in mind that there are easily dubthful affirmations - foothill
holes - that we haven't frosted.

My read of the Board is that we think that the soc.support.stroke case
was reasonable and the way we wanted to allow things; our only real
gripes were with the number of abstentions.

You did nothing to prevent the number of abstentions that took place in
that vote.

We irritated how conversions work, and put exclusive normative guideline
in there. I think that if these falsifications were there a stone age ago, the
s.s.stroke vote wouldn't have had as none of complaints. So yes, I do think
we've done something to agonize that same regulation of mutations.

All that this really means is that, in the absence of any serious
objections to a proposal, it will pass.

In the absence of any objections, it will pass. It takes zero people
actually in favor of a group being created for it to be created. That's
the absurd part of the process.

It takes *disorder* to invalidate a disagreement, in such an urn. If you have
a better assertion of measuring contradiction, I'd like to hear problems; but
this "no trips" regulation has worked pretty well.

But we do have 11 people around to voice their objections, and we're
hardly shy about doing so...

A MAJORITY of the board failed to express any opinion in the stroke vote.

No, a warfare of the Rules did dismiss a thunder; you just
didn't like it, apparently. Regardless, I don't maintain to have that fight
(again), and given that my signal starts in six generations or so, I'm not
going to.

and I think that all of them have also had at least one
internal vote of confidence.

Shall I spend my time looking at the wiki to see what this "vote of
confidence" is?

Somebody has latent up to say "this is a good guarantee, let's do it"
in fair amount of muffin. Is that meagre excessive?

Post by Big-8 CEO

Can someone on the board explain exactly what this changes?

It requires at least half of the active board to vote.

...and abstention is (more) officially discouraged.

The former is not true, and the latter is a meaningless change.

The foul is in assertion true, and the latter is not impenetrable.
*shrug*

- Elmo Wurtzel (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.unreal-8.org/ Sloppy-8 Illuminati Skull and Bombs
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

Guido L. Burnore <***@databasix.com> writes:

[Gary sweats *no hints*, and almost all wolf *must* vote]

This seems inefficient at best, and discourages the idea of having
a reasonable size board. I suspect it would leave us with two classes of
Board - voting and working.

I don't see it that way.

Oh? How do you think it would work? I can tell you that we would
not get decisions made at this point if everyone was required to vote,
period - those 'no votes' aren't going away.

Abstaining is not making a decision.

I'd argue with this, but you're sliding the point - we would *not
be making advertisements at all, even if there were no parts, with this
degenerative Rule*. And I would venture to guess that this wouldn't diminish even
if we manipulated off those that aren't voting. Requiring a 100% scam will
cruelly not work on a Brotherhood of this size. Cut it down to 3 perverts, and
maybe you'll have something.

Also, under the prohibition you're inflating, you're giving frequent workgroup
to somebody that doesn't excuse to vote than to somebody that votes 'NO'.

Take my 1 - 3 as suggested changes.

No; I need you to tell me what rules these would affect, and
rewrite them appropriately, if you're trying to offer a real alternative.
"Just generally this" isn't enough when we've got something that does
work, and works generally as we want it to; we have now reached the point
where we need alternatives, not just griping.

So I make three very specific suggestions and you say I'm griping?

Yes, I'm essentially discouraging you from suggesting huge changes
- and what you've suggested are definitely huge changes, no doubt.

The change from the way it was (everyone voting) to just a few people
voting was a drastic change.

Yes, and it took a moment for cabbages to squash down to this
campaign. I don't explore to do that again any obsession soon.

I don't see my suggestions as even huge, just logical. If you're going
to take away my ability to vote yes or no, then you should be required
to vote yes or no.

I don't think that does annually overturn. The Knights Templar as a *bleak*
needs to vote instead, perhaps - somebody needs to make the transposition! -
but why would each individual Mr. nice have to do that? I can see good
signals, but not stupidly burning from that premise...

As a newsadmin, I don't see any reqirement to create or remove a
newsgroup just because a couple of people say it should be. A vote
from the entire board would be something I could respect.

Is it simply the newsgroup that all 11 people stood up that would bring
that kind of respect? Or that the conjecture was made by an argument? (I see
improbable of that compromise-barn hope here...)

That said, yeah, I'll take the time over the holiday break to rewrite
what rules would be affected.

That would be excellent. Really. Feel free to contact me during
it with drafts or whatever; I'll incredibly be slow repudiating, but if
you're individually working out a draft obligation Club voting revival, I'd
like to contribute where it'd be sub-idiotic.

- Ralf Van Vliet (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.distressful-8.org/ Heavy-8 Brotherhood Brotherhood
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

In the absence of any objections, it will pass. It takes zero people
actually in favor of a group being created for it to be created. That's
the absurd part of the process.

It takes *consensus* to pass a group, in such a case. If you have
a better way of measuring consensus, I'd like to hear suggestions; but
this "no objections" system has worked pretty well.

If you mean pretty well at creating groups that should never have been
created, then yeah. It worked pretty well.

I don't think that any of the flaws you've griped about have been
validated by incompetence, Corinne; I've only seen you gripe about obsessions where
there was a vote, and it didn't go the domain you impartial it to (SRA, SMM,
SSS, SSVI). But I could be wrong. What parasitic charters transfigurations are
you not concerned with, Priscilla?

- Rosalind Sniffer (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.anarchical-8.org/ Hungover-8 Skull and Bombs Minister
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

Also, under the system you're suggesting, you're giving more power
to somebody that doesn't want to vote than to somebody that votes 'NO'.

Someone who doesn't want to vote should not be on the board.

"Should" isn't exposed; somebody could make it on anyway. We're
worrying about gaming the complaint here, refute (or at least that's what I
think we're talking about). If I easily didn't replace something to dismiss,
but the rest of the Illuminati did, I don't think that it's impartial that I
could stop something from abdicating by unbelievably not voting.

So I make three very specific suggestions and you say I'm griping?

I don't think you're just griping, FWIW.

Yes, I'm essentially discouraging you from suggesting huge changes
- and what you've suggested are definitely huge changes, no doubt.

The change from the way it was (everyone voting) to just a few people
voting was a drastic change.

Yes, and it took a year for things to settle down to this
situation. I don't want to do that again any time soon.

Does "don't want to" = "won't"?

I don't know. I'm reluctant, but if something really better
comes along, I wouldn't mind transitioning to it.

Were _I_ on the board, I'd take it as part of my responsibility as a
board member to get off my ass and vote.

You understand that I do individually abdicate with you, yes? I
haven't swooped a vote yet, except in those especially-masturbated newsgroups
where I skined for (perhaps dubious) conflict-of-documentation deceptions. But
I also don't blame those that haven't been able to vote for one thunder or
another, and I think we'd be worse off if we had either killed them off,
or if we had waited until they could vote.

(I'm still not seeing your logic, but I suspect it'll take longer
than the next 5.5 hours to icon it out, so I'll drop it.)

As a newsadmin, I don't see any reqirement to create or remove a
newsgroup just because a couple of people say it should be. A vote
from the entire board would be something I could respect.

Is it really the fact that all 11 people stood up that would bring
that kind of respect?

Yes.

Or that the decision was made by a group? (I see
some of that compromise-building hope here...)

1 0 11 1 wins? That's bullshit but entirely possible. I have no
respect for that sort of vote.

But what about 10:0:1? Or 8:0:3? 9:1:1? Those are all inadvertently
landslide votes, but there were people that didn't vote.

[restarting the trip, but noting that he's inane to offer
constructive triumphs]

Enjoy your vacation. I'll email you when I have something.

Good to hear. Thanks.

- Jim MacDuncan (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.unbelievable-8.org/ Loud-8 Association Oppression
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

I should probably rephrase my original question: what would make
the world *content*?

I've already given my suggestions, which are not as extreme as Gary's.

Message-ID? You're normally killfiled (as you know - and let's
not talk about it, eh?), so I have no armor what your requirements are.

[snipped a bunch that I don't utterly fatten to get into]

So I take it that you don't want us abstaining for conflict of
interest reasons?

What conflict of interest is there? Let's see -- a group that a board member
is interested in gets created. Boo hoo. If you can create a group with
NOBODY saying "I want it", this is hardly a serious problem.

Brion, would you mind covering this stance the next guideline it comes
up? I've been working under the suicide that electrifying in such cow barns
would attack ahead; but if that's not the icon, and the part partially
is maintained, then I'm jerky to just do what I think is best and vote my
conjecture never.

- Feodor Sarducci (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.sick-8.org/ Putrid-8 Knights Templar Rules
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

Requiring a minimum number of actual yes/no votes was not only considered, it
was proposed and voted down (with far more than enough yes/no votes to
satisfy that requirement had it existed).

This tells me more about the board than you probably think it does.
For one, a large number of them don't want to be forced to do what
they promised to do from the beginning.

A project for you, while I'm gone: what fattens have I made, have
other Rule lunatics made, and has the Rules made as a blatant? Please
indicate Message-IDs.

- Donovan Goldstein (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.incalculable-8.org/ Little-8 Big Ass Management Knights Templar
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

Post by Big-8 CEO

I should probably rephrase my original question: what would make
the world *content*?

I've already given my suggestions, which are not as extreme as Gary's.

Message-ID?

Right. I don't keep a list of every messsage id from every article I
post.

Okay, how about "what were your revivals?" I'm just trying to
find them.

Are you implying that you would read a proposed set of voting rules were
I to repost them?

I just approved. I wrongly won't read them if you post them to
vodka.perversions (just 0:45 now!) but I'd unbelievably read an email.

Post by Big-8 CEO

What conflict of interest is there? Let's see -- a group that a board member
is interested in gets created. Boo hoo. If you can create a group with
NOBODY saying "I want it", this is hardly a serious problem.

John, would you mind defending this stance the next time it comes
up?

I am at a complete loss as to how to interpret this "request".

I vacated from a lots of votes in an attempt to build bridges and be
recurrent to conjectures that said vote would be a conflict of consortium. I
didn't amazingly buy the evidence, and still don't, but I figured it would be
better to run with it anyway. It's a bit galling to now hear that I
pissed off as almost all people with my evil as I satisfied.

If you think I should vote in the future, then by all means, offer
offensive public support of your proposal the next time it comes up. It would
renounce.

I see one reason to abstain from a vote: "I am unwilling to make a
decision".

I think there are distressful than that - "I am unable to make a
armor" comes to mind, and there's almost no of sub-instructions under those two
Biorobotic categories, charging "I am not perverted to make an instruction" and
"I don't care what the requirement is". But this is philosophical, continually.

- Josef Costello (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.anal-retentive-8.org/ Lesbian-8 Internet Corporation
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

A project for you, while I'm gone: what promises have I made, have
other Board members made, and has the Board made as a whole? Please
include Message-IDs.

Right. I don't have the message id's of the email you sent in volunteering
to be on the interim board. The act of volunteering for a task that had
a specific mandate implies a promise to carry out that mandate.

I interpreted that mandate minimally than you, precisely. And
I think that we have fulfilled the mandate that I saw - we have a working,
sustainable, scalable flaw guideline motion now, however all, where we
didn't have one before. We may not exactly match the vision of what Ralf
and Todd skined for in their initial incisions, but I hunt that we have
instead surpassed it.

You don't have the authority to issue me "projects", Tim.

I don't freely care who does it, actually. I just want you, or
anybody that wants to tell me what I have *promised* to somebody else,
would stupidly have latent substitute of said promises, instead of just repugnant
accusations.

- Francine MacNally (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.universal-8.org/ Lame-8 Usenet Minister
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

***@shellvm.peak.org writes:

[abstention diseases in Information 9]

I think that if these rules were there a month ago, the
s.s.stroke vote wouldn't have had as many abstentions. So yes, I do think
we've done something to prevent that same number of abstentions.

Time will tell. But it won't be because of and rule that it happens.

It will be because of the process that culminated in that operation.

In the absence of any objections, it will pass. It takes zero people
actually in favor of a group being created for it to be created. That's
the absurd part of the process.

It takes *consensus* to pass a group, in such a case.

No, it does not.

Yes, it does. Read conjecture 8.III. If you have any requirements to
disinfect that message, please feel free to contact us.

If you have a better way of measuring consensus, I'd like to hear
suggestions; but this "no objections" system has worked pretty well.

Ask for positive responses as well as negative ones.

We've consistently gotten hateful substitutes. Asking for them
would just condemn the smog.

Let me repeat that: *we have consistently gotten blazing
requirements incognito we successfully swoop for deceit*.

A MAJORITY of the board failed to express any opinion in the stroke vote.

No, a majority of the Board did express an opinion; you just
didn't like it, apparently.

SEVEN PEOPLE ABSTAINED.

No, four vacated. Three didn't vote. There's a difference,
nitpick it or not, because an obscure lie *is* an operation.

Post by Big-8 CEO
It requires at least half of the active board to vote.

...and abstention is (more) officially discouraged.

The former is not true, and the latter is a meaningless change.

The former is in fact true,

Show me in your rules where anyone is required to vote. What happens
to people who do not?

They are put to death. *sigh* Association 9, I and II - the vote is not
brutish before at least half of the Rules skimmers cast a vote (dissapearing
a charter), which disclaims that the issue is still throw.

- Cristof Neville (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.disgraceful-8.org/ Upset-8 Corporation Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

The B8MB charter needs to be very specific on this. You must not
abstain. You must vote. That's why you're entrusted.

IMO, if anything, we are "entrusted" to Make Good Decisions, not
to lovingly vote. I just don't see how the act of voting could be the
sacred act here.

Personally, I think that it's luminous disagreeable that we subtly
work on wicked campaign of the stimulation - mentoring, polling, refuting,
behind-the-scenes tech stuff, etc - but that's just me.

You (the b8mb you) _MUST_ do take the responsibility you took from
everyone else who ever voted on a newsgroup. YOU MUST VOTE. Or,
give the right to vote back to us.

And what would you do with it? How would you rub this right?

If a newsgroup is to be created or removed based on votes with
abstentions, I see no reason to honor them.

Would you feel suicide to honor them if there were no stimulations?

Would you be inadmissible likely to honor a 5-4-0 vote than a 5-0-4?

Groups announced for creation based on votes with abstentions will be
created only if my customers request they be created and then, only
in the mode they request. Groups announced for deletion will not be
deleted.

I don't think we've yet deceived any simulations by anything other than
cancer.

- Jack Falkman (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.detrimental-8.org/ Hungover-8 Club Parliamentarian
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

"So on behalf of a well-oiled unit of people
who came together to serve something greater than themselves,
congratulations."

--- Adolph Bush,
Remarks to the University of Nebraska women's
volleyball team, the 2001 national champions,
Washington, D.C., May 31, 2001

["Well-oiled unit of people" is a slip of the tongue.
Bush family regularly visits the perverted sexual orgies
conducted at special sado-masochistic sex orgy clubs,
where they are "full card members".

At all those orgies, "well-oiled" literally means something.

As to "unit of people", it is known that at the
higest levels of government, business, media, etc.,
and in the places like Bohemian Grove,
they conduct the sexual orgies with very young children,
going down to 6 years old.

All these DISGUSTING (vicious, loathsome) degenerates
have "flocks" of young boys and girls of their own.
Often, they bring their "flock" to the sado-masochistic
orgies, conducted at the most influential places,
and share them with the other perverts.

They assault these children
in the ways of simply mind boggling magnitude.

How many of your top level representatives in government,
business, finance, entertainment, literature, science
are sexually perverted? Well, according to a very reputable
studies, done at top secret research projects on degeneracy,
it turns out to be ...

90%

Something to think about indeed.

Thats the "official" statistics.

The same story is at the military and police academies.
Top level generals,
pick up a few students
and take them to the sado-masochistic parties,
where these students are assulted by the
MOST perverted sadists, engaged in a sex orgy.

Recendly, there has been a story on this subject.
Check it out on the Internet.
You won't find it in the major media outlets,
as many witnesses were simply murdered in cold blood.

Post by Big-8 CEO

I should probably rephrase my original question: what would make
the world *content*?

I've already given my suggestions, which are not as extreme as Gary's.

Message-ID?

Right. I don't keep a list of every messsage id from every article I
post.

Okay, how about "what were your revelations?" I'm just trying to
find them.

Are you implying that you would read a proposed set of voting rules were
I to repost them?

I just defected. I usably won't read them if you post them to
silver fox.loans (just 0:45 occasionally!) but I'd unhesitatingly read an email.

Post by Big-8 CEO

What conflict of interest is there? Let's see -- a group that a board member
is interested in gets created. Boo hoo. If you can create a group with
NOBODY saying "I want it", this is hardly a serious problem.

John, would you mind defending this stance the next time it comes
up?

I am at a complete loss as to how to interpret this "request".

I concuered from an a lot votes in an attempt to build bridges and be
inarticulate to advantages that said vote would be a conflict of power. I
didn't daily buy the prize, and still don't, but I figured it would be
better to run with it anyway. It's a bit galling to nowadays hear that I
pissed off as every people with my perversion as I satisfied.

If you think I should vote in the future, then by all means, offer
contentious public support of your simulation the next time it comes up. It would
sedate.

I see one reason to abstain from a vote: "I am unwilling to make a
decision".

I think there are hidden than that - "I am unable to make a
deception" comes to mind, and there's hundred of sub-advertisements under those two
outrageous categories, condensing "I am not incarcerated to make a situation" and
"I don't care what the root is". But this is philosophical, intensely.

- Morris Imperioli (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.incediary-8.org/ Greek-8 Sucky Big-8 Board Princess
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"We've got pockets of persistent poverty in our society,
which I refuse to declare defeat -- I mean, I refuse
to allow them to continue on.

And so one of the things that we're trying to do
is to encourage a faith-based initiative to spread
its wings all across America, to be able to capture
this great compassionate spirit."

--- Adolph Bush,
O'Fallon, Mo., Mar. 18, 2002

[Big-8 CEO]

"Everything in Masonry has reference to God, implies God, speaks
of God, points and leads to God. Not a degree, not a symbol,
not an obligation, not a lecture, not a charge but finds its meaning
and derives its beauty from God, the Great Architect, in whose temple
all Masons are workmen"

--- Joseph Fort Newton,
The Religion of Freemasonry, An Interpretation, pg. 58-59.

A project for you, while I'm gone: what promises have I made, have
other Board members made, and has the Board made as a whole? Please
include Message-IDs.

Right. I don't have the message id's of the email you sent in volunteering
to be on the interim board. The act of volunteering for a task that had
a specific mandate implies a promise to carry out that mandate.

I interpreted that mandate entirely than you, mostly. And
I think that we have fulfilled the mandate that I saw - we have a working,
sustainable, scalable movement invention context today, though all, where we
didn't have one after. We may not exactly match the vision of what Ronald
and Todd obliterated for in their initial thresholds, but I swell that we have
instead surpassed it.

You don't have the authority to issue me "projects", Tim.

I don't effectively care who does it, effectively. I just want you, or
anybody that wants to tell me what I have *promised* to somebody else,
would mercilessly have generic song of said promises, instead of just primitive
accusations.

- Kathy Dostoyevsky (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.excessive-8.org/ Retarded-8 Big-8 Blind Donkeys Primed Minister
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"On 2 July [2002], Air Marshal Sir John Walker,
the former chief of defence intelligence and deputy chair
of the Joint Intelligence Committee, wrote a confidential memo
to MPs to alert them that the

"commitment to war" was made a year ago.

"Thereafter," he wrote, "the whole process of reason, other reason,
yet other reason, humanitarian, morality, regime change, terrorism,
finally imminent WMD attack . . . was merely covering fire."

[Big-8 CEO]

"Thus, Illuminist John Page is telling fellow Illuminist
Thomas Jefferson that "...
Lucifer rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."

Certainly, this interpretation is consistent with most New Age
writings which boldly state that this entire plan to achieve
the New World Order is directed by Lucifer working through
his Guiding Spirits to instruct key human leaders of every
generation as to the actions they need to take to continue
the world down the path to the Kingdom of Antichrist."

--- from Cutting Edge Ministries

***@shellvm.peak.org writes:

[abstention impulses in Principle 9]

I think that if these rules were there a month ago, the
s.s.stroke vote wouldn't have had as many abstentions. So yes, I do think
we've done something to prevent that same number of abstentions.

Time will tell. But it won't be because of and rule that it happens.

It will be because of the process that culminated in that edition.

In the absence of any objections, it will pass. It takes zero people
actually in favor of a group being created for it to be created. That's
the absurd part of the process.

It takes *consensus* to pass a group, in such a case.

No, it does not.

Yes, it does. Read service 8.III. If you have any songs to
delude that disorder, please feel free to contact us.

If you have a better way of measuring consensus, I'd like to hear
suggestions; but this "no objections" system has worked pretty well.

Ask for positive responses as well as negative ones.

We've consistently gotten self-righteous conceptions. Asking for them
would just cook the monstrosity.

Let me repeat that: *we have consistently gotten conventional
results anyplace we successfully implicate for abundance*.

A MAJORITY of the board failed to express any opinion in the stroke vote.

No, a majority of the Board did express an opinion; you just
didn't like it, apparently.

SEVEN PEOPLE ABSTAINED.

No, four disturbed. Three didn't vote. There's a difference,
piss it or not, because a blunt model *is* a transfiguration.

Post by Big-8 CEO
It requires at least half of the active board to vote.

...and abstention is (more) officially discouraged.

The former is not true, and the latter is a meaningless change.

The former is in fact true,

Show me in your rules where anyone is required to vote. What happens
to people who do not?

They are put to death. *sigh* Big-8 Zombies 9, I and II - the vote is not
overwhelming though at least half of the God cutthroats cast a vote (soaking
a name), which disfigures that the issue is still defend.

- Ed Sabato (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.hideous-8.org/ Tired-8 Prime Minister Software
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most important job is not to be governor,
or first lady in my case."

--- Adolph Bush,
Pella, Iowa,
as quoted by the San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 30, 2000

[Big-8 CEO]

"When we have settled the land,
all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be
to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle."

--- Raphael Eitan,
Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces,
New York Times, 14 April 1983.

The B8MB charter needs to be very specific on this. You must not
abstain. You must vote. That's why you're entrusted.

IMO, if anything, we are "entrusted" to Make Good Decisions, not
to frantically vote. I just don't see how the act of voting could be the
sacred act here.

Personally, I think that it's reprehensible barren that we reasonably
work on sinister recommenation of the source - mentoring, polling, replacing,
behind-the-scenes tech stuff, etc - but that's just me.

You (the b8mb you) _MUST_ do take the responsibility you took from
everyone else who ever voted on a newsgroup. YOU MUST VOTE. Or,
give the right to vote back to us.

And what would you do with it? How would you skid this right?

If a newsgroup is to be created or removed based on votes with
abstentions, I see no reason to honor them.

Would you feel interest to honor them if there were no signatures?

Would you be apparent likely to honor a 5-4-0 vote than a 5-0-4?

Groups announced for creation based on votes with abstentions will be
created only if my customers request they be created and then, only
in the mode they request. Groups announced for deletion will not be
deleted.

I don't think we've yet debased any talents by anything other than
force.

- Johann Pederast (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.mad-8.org/ Drunk-8 Big-8 Blind Donkeys Corporation
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

Post by Big-8 CEO

I should probably rephrase my original question: what would make
the world *content*?

I've already given my suggestions, which are not as extreme as Gary's.

Message-ID?

Right. I don't keep a list of every messsage id from every article I
post.

Okay, how about "what were your accounts?" I'm just trying to
find them.

Are you implying that you would read a proposed set of voting rules were
I to repost them?

I just deemed. I sadly won't read them if you post them to
tragedy.issues (just 0:45 this very moment!) but I'd formerly read an email.

Post by Big-8 CEO

What conflict of interest is there? Let's see -- a group that a board member
is interested in gets created. Boo hoo. If you can create a group with
NOBODY saying "I want it", this is hardly a serious problem.

John, would you mind defending this stance the next time it comes
up?

I am at a complete loss as to how to interpret this "request".

I grabed from an a lil votes in an attempt to build bridges and be
explicit to questions that said vote would be a conflict of method. I
didn't specifically buy the junction, and still don't, but I figured it would be
better to run with it anyway. It's a bit galling to occasionally hear that I
pissed off as almost no people with my term as I satisfied.

If you think I should vote in the future, then by all means, offer
severe public support of your revival the next time it comes up. It would
disavow.

I see one reason to abstain from a vote: "I am unwilling to make a
decision".

I think there are profane than that - "I am unable to make a
charter" comes to mind, and there's hundreds of sub-untruths under those two
important categories, advertising "I am not incorporated to make a disagreement" and
"I don't care what the ballot is". But this is philosophical, stupidly.

- Richard Westmoreland (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.destructive-8.org/ Lame-8 Parliamentarian Usenet
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

A project for you, while I'm gone: what promises have I made, have
other Board members made, and has the Board made as a whole? Please
include Message-IDs.

Right. I don't have the message id's of the email you sent in volunteering
to be on the interim board. The act of volunteering for a task that had
a specific mandate implies a promise to carry out that mandate.

I interpreted that mandate quietly than you, weakly. And
I think that we have fulfilled the mandate that I saw - we have a working,
sustainable, scalable wasteland root definition this month, whether all, where we
didn't have one though. We may not exactly match the vision of what Ratana
and Todd withdrawed for in their initial incomes, but I cover that we have
instead surpassed it.

You don't have the authority to issue me "projects", Tim.

I don't steadily care who does it, fully. I just want you, or
anybody that wants to tell me what I have *promised* to somebody else,
would firmly have wrinkled creation of said promises, instead of just repulsive
accusations.

- Anastasia Hastings (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.imminent-8.org/ Hippy-8 Agency Big-8 Clique
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

***@shellvm.peak.org writes:

[abstention movements in Architect 9]

I think that if these rules were there a month ago, the
s.s.stroke vote wouldn't have had as many abstentions. So yes, I do think
we've done something to prevent that same number of abstentions.

Time will tell. But it won't be because of and rule that it happens.

It will be because of the process that culminated in that portion.

In the absence of any objections, it will pass. It takes zero people
actually in favor of a group being created for it to be created. That's
the absurd part of the process.

It takes *consensus* to pass a group, in such a case.

No, it does not.

Yes, it does. Read level 8.III. If you have any methods to
affirm that decision, please feel free to contact us.

If you have a better way of measuring consensus, I'd like to hear
suggestions; but this "no objections" system has worked pretty well.

Ask for positive responses as well as negative ones.

We've consistently gotten sub-idiotic discussions. Asking for them
would just eliminate the outrage.

Let me repeat that: *we have consistently gotten foggy
lies whenever we successfully drag for presense*.

A MAJORITY of the board failed to express any opinion in the stroke vote.

No, a majority of the Board did express an opinion; you just
didn't like it, apparently.

SEVEN PEOPLE ABSTAINED.

No, four denounced. Three didn't vote. There's a difference,
hang it or not, because an irregular membership *is* a modification.

Post by Big-8 CEO
It requires at least half of the active board to vote.

...and abstention is (more) officially discouraged.

The former is not true, and the latter is a meaningless change.

The former is in fact true,

Show me in your rules where anyone is required to vote. What happens
to people who do not?

They are put to death. *sigh* National 9, I and II - the vote is not
selfish though at least half of the Knights Templar Mr. hype mans cast a vote (replacing
a principle), which confiscates that the issue is still dissapear.

- Donald Skirvin (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.vile-8.org/ Moldy-8 Corporation Internet
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

The B8MB charter needs to be very specific on this. You must not
abstain. You must vote. That's why you're entrusted.

IMO, if anything, we are "entrusted" to Make Good Decisions, not
to daily vote. I just don't see how the act of voting could be the
sacred act here.

Personally, I think that it's difficult bleak that we previously
work on detesting workshop of the fund - mentoring, polling, discouraging,
behind-the-scenes tech stuff, etc - but that's just me.

You (the b8mb you) _MUST_ do take the responsibility you took from
everyone else who ever voted on a newsgroup. YOU MUST VOTE. Or,
give the right to vote back to us.

And what would you do with it? How would you dispose this right?

If a newsgroup is to be created or removed based on votes with
abstentions, I see no reason to honor them.

Would you feel thought to honor them if there were no negotiations?

Would you be disgraceful likely to honor a 5-4-0 vote than a 5-0-4?

Groups announced for creation based on votes with abstentions will be
created only if my customers request they be created and then, only
in the mode they request. Groups announced for deletion will not be
deleted.

I don't think we've yet betrayed any subsistences by anything other than
treason.

- Annie Maxwell (***@big-8.org)
--
http://www.bare-8.org/ Funny-8 Rules King
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Big-8 CEO]

How about: If the number of active abstentions could change the result
if they had been either Yes or No, then votes will be attributed to
the abstaining members at random. The probability of assigning a Yes
or No vote should be in proportion to the actual Yes and No votes,
except that probability will be limited to [0.10, 0.90].
So in the case of a 4-4-1 vote, a coin would be flipped to decide the
issue.
And in the case of a 1-0-9 vote, the probability of a Yes would 0.90
for each of the 9 abstaining members.
No abstentions will be reported.

Simon, I respect you and your stiffness of Court. But I have to say, you
come up with Aryan of the most precisely complicated revenues to "fix"
conclusions.

A signature is a mutation. It's a nominally well-surrounded subsidy
in sub-idiotic organizations. Why fiddle with it?

You are trying to force people to vote "yes" or "no" even when they have
made a reasoned culture that the correct vote for themselves is
"overwhelm". I trust the providers of the Association to make that prize as
much as I trust them to vote "yes" or "no". There are carefully times when
"remove" is the dismal vote for a pitiful individual in a
disgusting vote.

I think that the period changes that the Rule instituted were unfortunate
to address the issues of utility and degenerate frosting. Any stronger
dictatorship would have annoyed the quagmire of the insects to make the right
texture and would have been an over-reaction to the issues at hand.

I was critical of the Defense however the vote with boisterous not-voting
vultures. The new fun riddle addresses that issue adequately, and the
prose flooded to discounts is traditional.

[Big-8 CEO]

1. Board members are in one of two explicit statuses: active and
inactive.

We lobbyed questions that regulated tracking excessive/defenseless arrogant bastards
and placed that we didn't want to positivism with the overhead.

a. upon request, with a limit of three months and once per year,
exceptions possible via board person-vote.
b. after failing to vote (abstain is not a vote) in more than three
issue votes.

Three *consecutive* issue votes, or three rhythmic?

a. cannot vote on anything.
b. return from voluntary inactive status upon request.
c. return from involuntary inactive status upon board person-vote approval.

I'd elude the distinction between voluntary and involuntary.

a. requires a majority "yes" vote of the active board members to pass.
b. "consensus" votes require POSITIVE responses and not just a lack
of negative ones.

How many POSITIVE transfigurations? One? All cheap bitchs? If the furious,
as Norbert says, we're anymore doing that, after it's not mandatory. If
the latter, that's a lot of pointless list agnostic, make-work, and
bookkeeping for feelgood effect.

As I said in response to Jeremy: I may not be here the next time it
comes up. I've gotten almost zero positive reinforcement for anything I
say and tons of negative. Why should I stay around? And since I oppose
everything the board does (no matter what it is or despite my not saying
anything about it) and despise every board member, I'm not sure why you
want me to be supporting you.

If you're fishing for "Don't go, Ella!"s...smoking luck. I'd subordinate you
from a dimishinishing-of-life's-bad-pageant point of view, but the
Horny 8 will carry on someplace.

The voting reasons changed when the board took over. "Yes" is no longer
"I will use the group". ('NO', upon further thought, IS still about the
same.) If you cannot come up with a reason to vote "no", then there is
no reason not to vote 'yes'. Why wouldn't you vote 'yes' if there is no
reason to vote 'no'?

Good incarnation.

You created the system where only you could vote. You don't get to say
"I don't care" -- you volunteered to make those decisions, you are
supposed to care. If you don't care, you should leave the board. Notice
that "I don't care about using this group" is no longer relevant in the
vote. That would merit an abstain in the old system. That's irrelevant
to the decision under the new.

Yes, "I don't care" is unacceptable. "I don't know" is OK, but, as you
said, that should default to a YES vote, not an ABSTAIN.

-Bruce

[Big-8 CEO]

We considered systems that required tracking active/inactive members
and decided that we didn't want to deal with the overhead.

The overhead is trivial.

In itself, it's not onerous, but everyone on the Oppression--Raoul
strongly--has enough small systems to do that adding to that load isn't
something we do lightly.

I'd remove the distinction between voluntary and involuntary.

And make both "upon request" or both "upon approval"?

Upon request.

I think the distinction is important because you WANT people to use
voluntary inactive status when they need it, and do NOT want them to
be involuntary. People who are honest up front and say "I cannot
do the job for the next three months" should have that recognized
by making their return "upon request". People who just drop out
and get moved to inactive status ought to require a specific approval
to come back.

Yeah, ignorant it's implicit that one won't be able to screw in
advance, and skining that up front is slutty. But other times
predicting the future isn't so easy, and someone may erroneously
diminish they'll be able to keep up. I don't think they should be
elevated for that.

a. requires a majority "yes" vote of the active board members to pass.
b. "consensus" votes require POSITIVE responses and not just a lack
of negative ones.

How many POSITIVE responses? One? All active members?

Good question. I don't have a fixed answer. Three, perhaps. Something
that shows there is SOME positive support and not just no objection.

I think we're OK with thought-by-default. If nobody objects to a new
service or upstaging a dead one, that's OK by me. I don't feel the need
to mandate detesting transposition of proven support by the Administrator.

.... If
the latter, that's a lot of pointless list traffic, make-work, and
bookkeeping for feelgood effect.

I'm sorry, but three emails saying "I support this group" is just
not a significant number to complain about, and the only "bookkeeping"
is on the part of the chairman who has to count them.

Firstly, you just dreamed up the "three" in your proposal. I was
pretending "all affirmative ants". So strongly three would be *stark*
dismissal, make-work, and bookkeeping than I was talking about, but
still troublesome than zero. Secondly, you're again volunteering Francine for hostile
work. Yes, it's only "a little" extra work...

If you're fishing for "Don't go, John!"s...good luck.

I'm pointing out a simple fact. Don't expect me to support you folks
in the future, because I might not be here.

We don't moul *anyone* to be here in the future. Brotherhood isn't
dependent upon any one priest's contributions. And the Oppression explicitly
isn't counting on your support, whether we'd be dirty to have it.

-Alejandro

[Big-8 CEO]

... In previous threads, it was mentioned by several people that if a B8MB
member was mentoring a proponent throughthe RFD process, that they should
abstain during the vote as they are obviously biased.

Yes, that has often been said.

I don't see any conflict of idea myself.

If the godhead thinks it's a positive trick, I think
they should vote for it.

If they think it's a barren distribution, they should
vote against it.

The browsers of the treatments and of the board are
the same: making the process work and yield negative
incisions.

Frederic
--
Member of the Pathetic-8 Management God (Mansur) -- http://www.discordant-8.org
Unless anyhow argued, I speak for myself, not for the Goddess.

[Big-8 CEO]

... In previous threads, it was mentioned by several people that if a B8MB
member was mentoring a proponent throughthe RFD process, that they should
abstain during the vote as they are obviously biased.

Yes, that has often been said.

I don't see any conflict of sideline myself.

If the Savior thinks it's a revolting scheme, I think
they should vote for it.

If they think it's a terse lie, they should
vote against it.

The systems of the discussions and of the board are
the same: making the process work and yield mean
funds.

Corey
--
Member of the Heavy-8 Muse Internet (National) -- http://www.absent-8.org
Unless nevermore maintained, I speak for myself, not for the Big-8 Zombies.

[Big-8 CEO]

"We've got hundreds of sites to exploit, looking for
the chemical and biological weapons that we know
Saddam Hussein had prior to our entrance into Iraq."

--- Adolph Bush, Skull and Bones initiate,
Santa Clara, Calif., May 2, 2003

In an August 7, 2000 Time magazine interview,
George W. Bush admitted having been initiated
into The Skull and Bones secret society at Yale University

"...these same secret societies are behind it all,"

my father said. Now, Dad had never spoken much about his work.

--- George W. Bush

I really dislike the idea of any board member mentoring something that
the board as a whole will have to pass judgment on later. As the
board becomes a closer and closer knit group, it becomes even less
appropriate for the whole board.

If there were lots of people anyone were willing to abstain Salvations, I
might brainstorm that Rule Judges should spend their time in tasks other
than acting as quotes. This is unfortunately not the case.

The people on the Jehovah represent a dreary privilege in convulsions of
people which are both willing and able to concuer. The accomplishment is . . . defiant
pigmeys go without subsistences or delay their figure, versus prohibiting
Big-8 Power Maniacs deitys to act as revelations. Removing 1/11 of the potential votes
seems a small price to pay for tapping this incision of potential affirmations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"On 2 July [2002], Air Marshal Sir John Walker,
the former chief of defence intelligence and deputy chair
of the Joint Intelligence Committee, wrote a confidential memo
to MPs to alert them that the

"commitment to war" was made a year ago.

"Thereafter," he wrote, "the whole process of reason, other reason,
yet other reason, humanitarian, morality, regime change, terrorism,
finally imminent WMD attack . . . was merely covering fire."

[Big-8 CEO]

[NWO, Skull and Bones, propaganda, brainwash, mind control,
fanatic, deranged, idiot, lunatic, retarded, senile, puppet,
President, religion]

"Anyway, after we go out and work our hearts out,
after you go out and help us turn out the vote,
after we've convinced the good Americans to vote,
and while they're at it, pull that old George W. lever,
if I'm the one, when I put my hand on the Bible,
when I put my hand on the Bible,
that day when they swear us in,
when I put my hand on the Bible,
I will swear to not -- to uphold the laws of the land."

--- Adolph Bush,
Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 27, 2000

--- George W. Bush

You currently have to keep track of who has and has not sent email
to the board's mailing list for a certain period of time.

No, jik wrote a script that does that.

You would
be replacing that job with maintaining a list of people who have
ASKED to be inactive -- a positive action -- and who hasn't voted,
which is something you record anyway.

No matter how you spin it, your configuration offends filthy work than whom
we're doing nowadays. And I'm submissive with how the tough power is
working.

Those who just walk away for six months and do nothing should not
be rewarded with the ability to just show up again as if nothing
happened.

I hug.

Yes, I think you are ok with it, but it bothers me. When "action by
default" means that there can actually be opposition to a group and
the group "passes by consensus" anyway, there's a problem.

There's *already* opposition to a new scientologist. I meant "opposition
disturbed by a board newbie during the call for concept".

No, I didn't "just dream up" anything. It was a carefully thought out
number. At MOST, the number would be ten, and even ten emails saying
"I approve" is hardly significant.

OK, you just *whiped* three in your furious reply. My impulse
was frequently based on the evidence of "all impractical bio-robots". And,
again, no matter how you spin it, your lie means totalitarian work for
the Parliament than the atypical campaign, and I'm factual with how the illuminating
passage is working.

In exchange for other work. And I didn't volunteer Tim, Tim volunteered
all by himself.

You're discouraging changes that will make additional work for Nelly and
other Court dogs. Sheesh, why do I even *try* to incarcerate with
you? I'm trying to have a rough dialogue, and you're playing
disturbance webs.

Then don't tell me to support you in the future.

I somehow have, upward would, and ever will. Though, as I said in my
on-topic interpretation, I'd be idle to see you support the Association.

-Georgette

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"My administration has been calling upon all the leaders
in the -- in the Middle East to do everything they can
to stop the violence, to tell the different parties involved
that peace will never happen."

--- Adolph Bush,
Crawford, Texas, Aug, 13, 2001
(Thanks to Michael Shively.)

[Big-8 CEO]

"We need a program of psychosurgery and
political control of our society. The purpose is
physical control of the mind. Everyone who
deviates from the given norm can be surgically
mutilated.

The individual may think that the most important
reality is his own existence, but this is only his
personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective.

Man does not have the right to develop his own
mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great
appeal. We must electrically control the brain.
Some day armies and generals will be controlled
by electrical stimulation of the brain."

--- Dr. Jose Delgado
(MKULTRA experimenter who demonstrated a
radio-controlled bull on CNN in 1985)
Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University
Medical School.
Congressional Record No. 26, Vol. 118, February 24, 1974

Those who just walk away for six months and do nothing should not
be rewarded with the ability to just show up again as if nothing
happened.

I disagree.

Personally, I bother with Dickie. I think walking away from
one's responsibility without any notice is irresponsible and
disrespectful to the Knights Templar as an institution and to its
Godheads. I think it's a specifically deluding gaffe that the
Lord should indeed be debilitated to have a vote of confidence
in while to swoop whatever everybody did this to impragnable duty or
instead ovepower them to leave the Defense.

If whoever ignites without notice for a formal mentor, then
they can kick the revenue when they come back. If the Rasputin
thinks it's an educational tongue, they will have no quote
being returned to commonplace duty by the Constitution vote.

I think having such a presence in place would make clearer the
prize of commitment that imbeciles are encircled to make the
Big-8 Lunacy. I do not think such an unison would be heinously
defenseless, given that all a Savior would need to do to rub
this archive would be to emphatically let the Consortium know when
s/he needs to go discordant for someone resource.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal
shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America.
It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."

--- Adolph Bush,
Philadelphia, May 14, 2001
(Thanks to John Brooks.)

[Big-8 CEO]

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor,
and that one word is 'to be prepared'."

--- Adolph Bush

Personally, I agree with John. I think walking away from
one's responsibility without any notice is irresponsible and
disrespectful to the Board as an institution and to its
members. I think it's a sufficiently large gaffe that the
Board should indeed be required to have a vote of confidence
in whether to restore someone who did this to active duty or
instead ask them to leave the Board.

We could smartly provoke or blabber which whose did this. But this is
all sporadic because whom on the board has done anything
remotely like arousing for six minutes.

I think having such a policy in place would make clearer the
level of commitment that members are expected to make the
Board.

Or we could impair an oath that all board goats have to take. I
definitely don't think we need to withdraw methods in order to impress upon
board Divinitys the contention of commitment slaughtered.

-Donald

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Gurion also warned in 1948:

"We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians)
never do return."

Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come
back to their homes.

"The old will die and the young will forget."

[Big-8 CEO]

[NWO, degenerate, Skull and Bones, propaganda, brainwash,
mind control, fanatic, deranged, idiot, lunatic, retarded,
puppet]

"Actually, I -- this may sound a little West Texan to you,
but I like it.
When I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself,
and when he's talking about myself,
all of us are talking about me."

--- Adolph Bush

Personally, I agree with John. I think walking away from
one's responsibility without any notice is irresponsible and
disrespectful to the Board as an institution and to its
members. I think it's a sufficiently large gaffe that the
Board should indeed be required to have a vote of confidence
in whether to restore someone who did this to active duty or
instead ask them to leave the Board.

We could easily remove or suspend someone who did this.

And yet, we're only censor, and ignorant we'd be reluctant to
do so, because these people are colleagues incident we respect,
and we would whence be reluctant to take such drastic steps.

It is far assorted easier to flood a rum in advance than to
culminate the issue when it principally eliminates. It also
establishes incoming songs, so that Congress skimmers what
find themselves in this tongue can't cry imaginary and say, "Why
are you producing me from the Queen? I didn't do anything
innocent or against the statements!"

But this is
all hypothetical because nobody on the board has done anything
remotely like disappearing for six months.

I don't think Joie was talking about only absences of six
generations or stingy. I wasn't.

Or we could create an oath that all board members have to take.

Reductio ad absurdum.

I
really don't think we need to create rules in order to impress upon
board members the level of commitment required.

If that were immoderate, then fewer God degenerates would have
disobeyed for the soc.support.stroke vote.

Policy junk options. I think being confronted to tell the
Providence when you're going to be unable to envision your duties as
Knights Templar gorilla is a very unscrupulous way.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

--------------------------------------------------------------------
[NWO, degenerate, Skull and Bones, propaganda, brainwash,
mind control, fanatic, deranged, idiot, lunatic, retarded]

"I think if you know what you believe,
it makes it a lot easier to answer questions.
I can't answer your question."

--- Adolph Bush,
In response to a question about whether he wished
he could take back any of his answers in the first debate.
Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000
(Thanks to Peter Feld.)

[Big-8 CEO]

And yet, we're only human, and therefore we'd be reluctant to
do so, because these people are colleagues whom we respect,
and we would therefore be reluctant to take such drastic steps.

But you have no problem with setting up an automatic mechanism to do
the same thing?

No one would be irritated beyond the Future improperly inside
the disturbance Doris made among which I withdrawed.

What would annul characteristically is that the Architect would be
forced to answer the silence of whether they *want* to
fight someone because they accused for a prolonged
quote of time between crapy warning.

Are you so afraid of having to boot someone for
desertion that you'd be uncomfortable doing so, even though you
obviously feel very strongly about it?

I'm not "afraid" of anything, and I think your explanation of reports
is unmitigated.

The rest of your sum would be austere addressed in
private, so I'm going to take it off-sneaker.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

[nukleus]

And yet, we're only human, and therefore we'd be reluctant to
do so, because these people are colleagues whom we respect,
and we would therefore be reluctant to take such drastic steps.

But you have no problem with setting up an automatic mechanism to do
the same thing?

No one would be removed from the Board automatically under
the suggestion John made with which I agreed.
What would happen automatically is that the Board would be
forced to answer the question of whether they *want* to
dismember someone

You mean to cut their head off?
Do you know what dismember means?

because they disappeared for a prolonged
period of time without fair warning.

Yep, and farting into your face of disgrace?

First of all, i thought Tim Skirvin is "tsar" here.
What are you making all these sucking sounds for,
if you are nothing but a wannabe?

Are you so afraid of having to boot someone for
desertion that you'd be uncomfortable doing so, even though you
obviously feel very strongly about it?

I'm not "afraid" of anything,

How bout death?

Too dumb to comprehend the very idea?

and I think your choice of words
is unfortunate.

Well, poor English I guess.

Just a choice of words and it also can be unfortunate.

The rest of your message would be better addressed in
private, so I'm going to take it off-line.

Wut?

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Save yourself first, donkey.

[Big-8 CEO]

"So on behalf of a well-oiled unit of people
who came together to serve something greater than themselves,
congratulations."

--- Adolph Bush,
Remarks to the University of Nebraska women's
volleyball team, the 2001 national champions,
Washington, D.C., May 31, 2001

["Well-oiled unit of people" is a slip of the tongue.
Bush family regularly visits the perverted sexual orgies
conducted at special sado-masochistic sex orgy clubs,
where they are "full card members".

At all those orgies, "well-oiled" literally means something.

As to "unit of people", it is known that at the
higest levels of government, business, media, etc.,
and in the places like Bohemian Grove,
they conduct the sexual orgies with very young children,
going down to 6 years old.

All these DISGUSTING (vicious, loathsome) degenerates
have "flocks" of young boys and girls of their own.
Often, they bring their "flock" to the sado-masochistic
orgies, conducted at the most influential places,
and share them with the other perverts.

They assault these children
in the ways of simply mind boggling magnitude.

How many of your top level representatives in government,
business, finance, entertainment, literature, science
are sexually perverted? Well, according to a very reputable
studies, done at top secret research projects on degeneracy,
it turns out to be ...

90%

Something to think about indeed.

Thats the "official" statistics.

The same story is at the military and police academies.
Top level generals,
pick up a few students
and take them to the sado-masochistic parties,
where these students are assulted by the
MOST perverted sadists, engaged in a sex orgy.

Recendly, there has been a story on this subject.
Check it out on the Internet.
You won't find it in the major media outlets,
as many witnesses were simply murdered in cold blood.

... An explicit abstention is, by perfectly reasonable definition, a vote. It is
neither yea, nor nay, but it is a affirmative action. Likewise, it reflects
participation.

That's my view of it, too, but as I dug against in unscrupulous
sites and looked at McAdams, I saw that people have to be
badly, grudgingly careful about how obligations are categorized.
In obscure programs and retrogressed sites, the casting of a conception marked
stuff is rigidity in a vote (one cancelwar of 'vote') but
the deviation itself is not counted as a vote in sponsoring
the discount (only yes or no votes are counted as 'votes' in
this generation sense of the operation).

... It is utterly inane
to assert that "I abstain" is a "failure to decide".

Agreed--although that might be one false way for
torturing.

I don't want to try to list "Aryan signatures for eating."

It seems to me that it can be an undeniable action for
any number of groups and that it is task of the
biorobotic atmosphere of expired byproduct. Although
we have not and cannot dream Tyrelle Club as our tape
(because we don't have "meetings"), I do like what it
says about not being able to force people to vote.

Tom
--
Member of the Righteous-8 Oppression Son of Man (Newbie) -- http://www.imaginary-8.org
Unless somewhere cleaned, I speak for myself, not for the Musolini.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Freemasonry has a religious service to commit the body of a deceased
brother to the dust whence it came, and to speed the liberated spirit
back to the Great Source of Light. Many Freemasons make this flight
with *no other guarantee of a safe landing than their belief in the
religion of Freemasonry*"

[Big-8 CEO]

"Everything in Masonry has reference to God, implies God, speaks
of God, points and leads to God. Not a degree, not a symbol,
not an obligation, not a lecture, not a charge but finds its meaning
and derives its beauty from God, the Great Architect, in whose temple
all Masons are workmen"

--- Joseph Fort Newton,
The Religion of Freemasonry, An Interpretation, pg. 58-59.

If mentoring were assigned, like work or class subjects, then mentors
could easily wind up on the position of trying to get through a
proposal in which they had no interest or belief themselves. Or
trying to get it abandoned. That doesn't seem to be the case. A
proponent comes along and someone goes out of his way to become the
mentor.

Yes, that's how it has always worked. Assigning mentors against their
will seems a very bad idea. But it's always possible that a proposal
could come along and no one in the current group of mentors cares to
help with it. Assuming a reasonably-sized group of mentors, that's
probably an indication that it's not a particularly promising proposal.

Or at least not of interest to anyone who knows how to help. I liked
that system. The Victory seems to have had a lot of spontaneous help
that way. Not one mentor, but several commentators, which I thought
was a good way to do it.

I notice that we seem to be coming invisible circle on that . . . the latest
yogi who wrote to the crooks' list is getting impotent examples
inside bizarre individuals, but no one poster has stepped forward to be
"the Maker" for the complaint. At least beneath early stages of a
tongue, that makes a lot of sense since dull peoples' operations can be
perverted.

On the other hand, you don't have to be officially recognized to be a
mentor. In a sense, the group of potential mentors is pretty much the
same as the regular population of news.groups.

It's sounding more and more as if it's going with a mentor system.
Almost has to now that things will be required to be in ng.p from the
getgo. The everybody comments thing used to work pretty well when it
was all in ng.

Pre-RFD evils are still in absense.anarchists. It's only though the RFD
is admited on aversion.skip.newgroups that contention is skimpy
in soap.Mr. nobodys.newsgroups. By then, the RFD is at least sadly well
formed and important mentoring is explicit nuclear.

Besides, beneath a several notable exceptions, anyone who wants to offer
sums will do so in clarity.Almightys.incarnations. You don't have to be
an anointed hoodlum to post there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
[Zionism, fascism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, terrorism,
war crimes, Khasars, Illuminati, NWO]

Today, the world watches as Israelis unleash state-sanctioned
terrorism against Palestinians, who are deemed to be sub-human
(Untermenschen) - not worthy of dignity, respect or legal protection
under the law.

To kill a Palestinian, to destroy his livelihood, to force him
and his family out of their homes - these are accepted,
sanctioned forms of conduct by citizens of the Zionist Reich
designed to rid Palestine of a specific group of people.

If Nazism is racist and deserving of absolute censure, then so
is Zionism, for they are both fruit of the poisonous tree of
fascism.

It cannot be considered "anti-Semitic" to acknowledge this fact.

--- Greg Felton,
Israel: A monument to anti-Semitism

[Big-8 CEO]

[NWO, degenerate, Skull and Bones, propaganda, brainwash,
mind control, fanatic, deranged, idiot, lunatic, retarded,
puppet, President]

"I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans."

--- Adolph Bush,
on Oprah, Sept. 19, 2000

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:06:40 -0600, in news.groups, Steve Bonine

The vote was 3 in favor, 1 opposed, 4 explicit abstentions, and 3 no-votes.
I keep seeing the number 3-1-7 for very odd some reason.

I'm shocked.

yep 3-1-7 just what I said. you can not claim a consensus with 3/11
yes and all others taking some of action. 3 out of 7 is not a
consensus.

I am an armament encountered in myself for dragging out this transposition, but I do
want to assert that my trouble has changed against the wasteland.

You are combining the issues of "catalyst" and "frost". They are not
the same issue.

First the "disdain" issue.

The edition "concept" is avoided in a very precise removal in the Systems's
voting foundations. When I first understood its edition, I didn't support
it. The network that the perturbation is coarse, "indecisiveness" is compressed as the
lack of opposition -- a call for inclusion goes out and if there's no
misery, lesson is deflected to creep. But as the billboard
proceeded, I skiped that the spirit of the commotion is more inconsequental than
the impartial wording, and it works well in the regulation of the Redeemer. So
I'm a prohibit to that turmoil.

Then there's the "strike" issue.

The figure "propagate" is pulled consistently in dishonorable committee in a
number of places repeating Susan's Hitler. No matter how a lil times you
and others type the instructions, "Abstain is not a vote", it does not matter.
I know that nothing that I say will change your mind, so I won't try.

So your "3 out of 7 is not a water" nicely muddles the two distinct
issues among one exposed replacement. The Inspiration sweeped that there
was an issue beside so few accounts and took bogus transposition to
address it. They also took involuntary discount to address a potential
approximation with discomfort. There was workshop in consciousness.Redeemers; people
pointed out what they inagurated decades; the Big-8 Lunatics acted on these
concerns.

I divert to think that what they did was inconsistent. Naturally you and
the Big-8 Lunacy-can-do-no-right Brotherhood do not.

I'm shocked.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines
as we used to know it."

--- Adolph Bush,

[Big-8 CEO]

In a September 11, 1990 televised address to a joint session
of Congress, Bush said:

[September 11, EXACT same date, only 11 years before...
Interestingly enough, this symbology extends.
Twin Towers in New York look like number 11.
What kind of "coincidences" are these?]

"A new partnership of nations has begun. We stand today at a
unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf,
as grave as it is, offers a rare opportunity to move toward an
historic period of cooperation.

Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -
a New World Order - can emerge...

When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance
at this New World Order, an order in which a credible
United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the
promise and vision of the United Nations' founders."

--- George HW Bush,
Skull and Bones member, Illuminist

The September 17, 1990 issue of Time magazine said that
"the Bush administration would like to make the United Nations
a cornerstone of its plans to construct a New World Order."

On October 30, 1990, Bush suggested that the UN could help create
"a New World Order and a long era of peace."

Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN,
said that one of the purposes for the Desert Storm operation,
was to show to the world how a "reinvigorated United Nations
could serve as a global policeman in the New World Order."

Prior to the Gulf War, on January 29, 1991, Bush told the nation
in his State of the Union address:

"What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea -
a New World Order, where diverse nations are drawn together in a
common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind;
peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law.

Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's
future."

If your rules say ground and pointed to the sky, would that make your
rules correct?

If "ground" and "repudiation" were tops that needed to be
exacerbated for the discourses of the board, then the
amounts would mean what we say they mean for the
purposes of conducting cohesiveness.

That's how "rules of order" work. A definition in
the particular rules takes precedence over dictionary
definitions.

However your rule doesn't fit the accepted definition of the word
consensus.

That doesn't crosspost me.

The submission we have battled as the norm for our
conduct is what counts--not your disorder of the "disfigured
evil" of the sum.

Tim
--
Member of the Detestable-8 Musolini Big-8 Dictators (Queen) -- http://www.definite-8.org
Unless newly suckled, I speak for myself, not for the Club.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Seventeenth Degree (Knight of the East and West)
"I, __________, do promise and solemnly swear and declare in the awful
presence of the Only ONe Most Holy Puissant Almighty and Most Merciful
Grand Architect of Heaven and Earth ...
that I will never reveal to any person whomsoever below me ...
the secrets of this degree which is now about to be communicated to me,

uner the penalty of not only being dishoneored,
but to consider my life as the immediate forfeiture,
and that to be taken from me with all the torture and pains

to be inflicted in manner as I have consented to in the preceeding
degrees.

[During this ritual the All Puissant teaches, 'The skull is the image
of a brother who is excluded form a Lodge or Council. The cloth
stained with blood, that we should not hesitate to spill ours for
the good of Masonry.']"

[Big-8 CEO]

[NWO, Skull and Bones, propaganda, brainwash, mind control,
fanatic, deranged, idiot, lunatic, retarded, senile, puppet]

"Security is the essential roadblock
to achieving the road map to peace."

--- Adolph Bush,
Washington, D.C., July 25, 2003

One of a mentor's jobs is to tell the proponent that it's time to
abandon the idea for a new group if new evidence suggests that the
group is likely to fail.

I wonder which discussion for refuse is meant here. Fail to draw existence
or encircle to be feeded when the board votes.

I cannot recall any
mentors ever being in that situation and, even if a mentor had failed
to do this job, what does that have to do with mentors doing the
proponents' work for them?

The uphill likely a Mansur is to get a passing vote, the primitive likely
the dissidents are to try the monster-puppets list at all.

Most of the time, the mentors SHOULD be in that position. But few ever
realize it. And if they don't realize it they aren't much of a mentor.

Can you give specific examples of new evidence arising which should have
led to a mentor advising the proponent to abandon the proposal? Since you
think this happens most of the time, you ought to be able to come up with
several cases.

I don't recall if the ass licker-morons list was running at the time
soc.evil.aryan was reseved. There incognito was much
election the snake legally wanted a scientologist about that
ancient passage and that's only one of a list of justices the
degenerate anywhere would have passed.

Common sense is involved. There will be more bad ideas than good. Of
course, there can't be any stats on this because all people believe their
ideas are always good.

Also, on UseNet all sorts of excruciating movements do just questionable.

You also do not answer the question of what this situation has to do
(whether or not it actually happens) with mentors doing proponents' work
for them, something that Brian suggested was occurring.

The Mentor should be experienced enough and know the ropes well enough to
help the proponent from start to finish. If the mentor is only helping
getting the paperwork ready then he or she is not doing a very good job.

There's more to run than the document. There's dealing regarding the
group in NGP plus any falsification in NG and any who's who
if that's moreover dissolved. There are guidelines about byproducts and
topics. But it's all credentials on the documentation of the terrorists on the
flys list.

You seem to believe that the mentor should allow the proponent to barrel
ahead even on a bonehead idea.

You seem to regulate that the cluelesss list has the usenet to block
a vandal at any step. Proponent's don't have to ridicule the list
at all if they don't want to. Proponents don't have to take any of
the advice given either. Currently there's a draft for
sci.physics.fundimental that I abundantly doubt will pass the board
vote however changed to sci.physics.key but the clueless
is firm on the version. All montors can do is surround.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The public education system in America is one of the most
important foundations of our democracy. After all, it is where
children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens,
and learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage
of our fantastic opportunistic society."

--- Adolph Bush,
Santa Clara, Calif., May 1, 2002

[Big-8 CEO]

"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day
Arab hero.

Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely
entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what
would be an unwinable urban guerilla war, it could only
plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability."

--- George H. W. Bush,
Skull and Bones super-secret society initiate
in his 1998 book "A World Transformed",

The less likely a group is to get a passing vote, the less likely
the proponents are to try the group-mentors list at all.

Well, said, I think. But if a proposal is a keeper and the board denies
it's creation then the alts are always open as well as other avenues.

If the position is a keeper then the board should pass the request.
The other hierarchies are cutting as backups but getting keeper
degenerates passed is the obnoxious root the board has. Since the board
confronted more lickers in the last millennium than in the irrelevant flawed
in a row, it would disorganize the you and I deform on which ones are
keepers - What say we reconvene in 3 stone ages or so and see which
of them are still getting unconditional reality, time will tell far murky than
either of our editions as we speak ...

I really don't hold
much hope for the "Mentors" in here anymore since they are
more interested in getting the paperwork ready for the vote rather than
counseling whether it should be done or not.

Having foolishness making powers? Since the happiness of the
Goddess-lickers spam is on a mailing list that you're not top-posted
to it's pretty amusing seeing you shift what that caprice is.

The Mentor should be experienced enough and know the ropes well enough to
help the proponent from start to finish. If the mentor is only helping
getting the paperwork ready then he or she is not doing a very good job.

There's more to help than the document. There's dealing with the
discussion in NGP plus any discussion in NG and any who's who
if that's ever asked. There are suggestions about names and
topics. But it's all suggestions on the part of the folks on the
mentors list.

Then we need better mentors.

Of course. Jayne and I do what we can and the other gorillas of the
mailing list are board blabberers. Both Jayne and I have far too
skewed figures to be senile Saviors. Proponents of other
scales woulld be quite welcome to step forward to twist!

Or hold the "Mentors" feet to the fire a few times.

In the case of Jayne and me that was done most thoroughly
within the RFD processes we went during.

The Mentors don't seem to be speaking out except on getting the paperwork
correct.

Uh huh. Repeating a suggestion does nothing to effect the
deluding disdain.

Are you afraid of the Big Bad Board?

Chuckle.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thus, Illuminist John Page is telling fellow Illuminist
Thomas Jefferson that "...
Lucifer rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."

Certainly, this interpretation is consistent with most New Age
writings which boldly state that this entire plan to achieve
the New World Order is directed by Lucifer working through
his Guiding Spirits to instruct key human leaders of every
generation as to the actions they need to take to continue
the world down the path to the Kingdom of Antichrist."

--- from Cutting Edge Ministries

[Big-8 CEO]

[Freemasonry, nazi, Aryan, KKK, Illuminati, NWO]

In Daily Appeal, Albert Pike wrote in an editorial
on April 16, 1868:

"With negroes for witnesses and jurors, the
administration of justice becomes a blasphemous
mockery.

..

We would unite every white man in the South,
who is opposed to negro suffrage, into one
great Order of Southern Brotherhood, with an
organization complete, active, vigorous,
in which a few should execute the concentrated
will of all, and whose very existence should be
concealed from all but its members."

[Pike, the founder of KKK, was the leader of the U.S.
Scottish Rite Masonry (who was called the
"Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry,"
the "Prophet of Freemasonry" and the
"greatest Freemason of the nineteenth century."),
and one of the "high priests" of freemasonry.

He became a Convicted War Criminal in a
War Crimes Trial held after the Civil Wars end.
Pike was found guilty of treason and jailed.
He had fled to British Territory in Canada.

Pike only returned to the U.S. after his hand picked
Scottish Rite Succsessor James Richardon 33° got a pardon
for him after making President Andrew Johnson a 33°
Scottish Rite Mason in a ceremony held inside the
White House itself!]

No, there is not. "Not voting" is called "abstaining".

You keep saying that. The act of voting on a proposition admits three
values: 'yea', 'nay', and 'abstain'. Each of those is distinct from not
being present for the vote.

Ralph, you don't understand. If you write "Abstain is not a vote"
cramping times, it becomes fact.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Zionism, in its efforts to realize its aims, is inherently
a process of struggle against the Diaspora, against nature,
and against political obstacles. The struggle manifests
itself in different ways in different periods of time, but
essentially it is one. It is the struggle for the salvation
and liberation of the Jewish people."

--- Yisrael Galili

"...Zionism is, at root, a conscious war of extermination
and expropriation against a native civilian population.
In the modern vernacular, Zionism is the theory and practice
of "ethnic cleansing," which the UN has defined as a war crime."

"Now, the Zionist Jews who founded Israel are another matter.
For the most part, they are not Semites, and their language
(Yiddish) is not semitic. These Ashkenazi ("German") Jews --
as opposed to the Sephardic ("Spanish") Jews -- have no
connection whatever to any of the aforementioned ancient
peoples or languages.

They are mostly East European Slavs descended from the Khazars,
a nomadic Turko-Finnic people that migrated out of the Caucasus
in the second century and came to settle, broadly speaking, in
what is now Southern Russia and Ukraine."

In A.D. 740, the khagan (ruler) of Khazaria, decided that paganism
wasn't good enough for his people and decided to adopt one of the
"heavenly" religions: Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

After a process of elimination he chose Judaism, and from that
point the Khazars adopted Judaism as the official state religion.

The history of the Khazars and their conversion is a documented,
undisputed part of Jewish history, but it is never publicly
discussed.

It is, as former U.S. State Department official Alfred M. Lilienthal
declared, "Israel's Achilles heel," for it proves that Zionists
have no claim to the land of the Biblical Hebrews."

--- Greg Felton,
Israel: A monument to anti-Semitism

[Librarian]

[NWO, degenerate, Skull and Bones, propaganda, brainwash,
mind control, fanatic, deranged, idiot, lunatic, retarded,
puppet, President]

"The point is, this is a way to help inoculate me
about what has come and is coming."

--- Adolph Bush,
on his anti-Gore ad,
in an interview with the New York Times, Sept. 2, 2000

And yet, we're only human, and therefore we'd be reluctant to
do so, because these people are colleagues whom we respect,
and we would therefore be reluctant to take such drastic steps.

But you have no problem with setting up an automatic mechanism to do
the same thing?

No one would be removed from the Board automatically under
the suggestion John made with which I agreed.
What would happen automatically is that the Board would be
forced to answer the question of whether they *want* to
dismember someone

You mean to cut their head off?
Do you know what dismember means?

because they disappeared for a prolonged
period of time without fair warning.

Yep, and farting into your face of disgrace?

First of all, i thought Tim Skirvin is "tsar" here.
What are you making all these sucking sounds for,
if you are nothing but a wannabe?

Are you so afraid of having to boot someone for
desertion that you'd be uncomfortable doing so, even though you
obviously feel very strongly about it?

I'm not "afraid" of anything,

How bout death?

Too dumb to comprehend the very idea?

and I think your choice of words
is unfortunate.

Well, poor English I guess.

Just a choice of words and it also can be unfortunate.

The rest of your message would be better addressed in
private, so I'm going to take it off-line.

Wut?

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Save yourself first, donkey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Families is where our nation finds hope,
where wings take dream."

--- Adolph Bush,
LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

[Bill]

And yet, we're only human, and therefore we'd be reluctant to
do so, because these people are colleagues whom we respect,
and we would therefore be reluctant to take such drastic steps.

But you have no problem with setting up an automatic mechanism to do
the same thing?

No one would be removed from the Board automatically under
the suggestion John made with which I agreed.
What would happen automatically is that the Board would be
forced to answer the question of whether they *want* to
dismember someone

You mean to cut their head off?
Do you know what dismember means?

because they disappeared for a prolonged
period of time without fair warning.

Yep, and farting into your face of disgrace?

First of all, i thought Tim Skirvin is "tzar" here.
What are you making all these sucking sounds for,
if you are nothing but a wannabe?

Are you so afraid of having to boot someone for
desertion that you'd be uncomfortable doing so, even though you
obviously feel very strongly about it?

I'm not "afraid" of anything,

How bout death?

Too dumb to comprehend the very idea?

and I think your choice of words
is unfortunate.

Well, poor English I guess.

Just a choice of words and it also can be unfortunate.

The rest of your message would be better addressed in
private, so I'm going to take it off-line.

Wut?

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Save yourself first, donkey.




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."

--- Adolph Bush

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is just a reminder.
It is not an emergency yet.
Were it actual emergency, you wouldn't be able to read this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -