R
REM
Susan put out a rough time table for the PL vote, in case you did not see it.
Comments are very welcomed.
<[email protected]>
Susan put out a rough time table for the PL vote, in case you did not see it.
Comments are very welcomed.
<[email protected]>
J
Jack D. Russell, Sr.
======================================================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup: alt.comp.freeware
* Reply to: All; "Semolina Pilchard" <[email protected]>
* Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:04:49 +0100
* Subj: Re: Add Gaim to pricelessware
======================================================================
SP> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 05:05:01 -0500, "Jack D. Russell, Sr."
BC>>> That is a completely false statement. Any and all who read this
BC>>> group are welcome to nominate, discuss and vote for the next
BC>>> Pricelessware list.
JDR>>
JDR>> ...but the final tally won't be made until (or as soon as) the
JDR>> wishes of the clique are ahead in the voting.
SP> As it's all done in the group, Jack, I'm sure you'll be able to
SP> collate the evidence very easily to back up your assertion, won't
SP> you?
SP> Oh, and who are the clique? Don't be coy. Name names. I'm sure
SP> we all want to know who it is you're sniping at in your feeble
SP> way. In case you're going to hide behind the winky smiley, you
SP> can have one from me. The semi-colon and right bracket doesn't
SP> alter deliberate unpleasantness whether it's from you or from me
SP>
It'd be a total waste of time, preaching to the choir. But...
One has to look no further than the shotgun vote to move the
pricelessware list to you guy's (You know who you are.) site. If you
find the whole fiasco unpleasant...<Shrug>. Now, tell everybody how
that decision was reached fairly, above board, giving all participants
in this group a chance to voice their opinion, etc. Now,
everybody...on three...one...two...sing loudly...three!
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup: alt.comp.freeware
* Reply to: All; "Semolina Pilchard" <[email protected]>
* Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:04:49 +0100
* Subj: Re: Add Gaim to pricelessware
======================================================================
SP> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 05:05:01 -0500, "Jack D. Russell, Sr."
BC>>> That is a completely false statement. Any and all who read this
BC>>> group are welcome to nominate, discuss and vote for the next
BC>>> Pricelessware list.
JDR>>
JDR>> ...but the final tally won't be made until (or as soon as) the
JDR>> wishes of the clique are ahead in the voting.
SP> As it's all done in the group, Jack, I'm sure you'll be able to
SP> collate the evidence very easily to back up your assertion, won't
SP> you?
SP> Oh, and who are the clique? Don't be coy. Name names. I'm sure
SP> we all want to know who it is you're sniping at in your feeble
SP> way. In case you're going to hide behind the winky smiley, you
SP> can have one from me. The semi-colon and right bracket doesn't
SP> alter deliberate unpleasantness whether it's from you or from me
SP>
It'd be a total waste of time, preaching to the choir. But...
One has to look no further than the shotgun vote to move the
pricelessware list to you guy's (You know who you are.) site. If you
find the whole fiasco unpleasant...<Shrug>. Now, tell everybody how
that decision was reached fairly, above board, giving all participants
in this group a chance to voice their opinion, etc. Now,
everybody...on three...one...two...sing loudly...three!
S
Semolina Pilchard
======================================================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup: alt.comp.freeware
* Reply to: All; "Semolina Pilchard" <[email protected]>
* Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:04:49 +0100
* Subj: Re: Add Gaim to pricelessware
======================================================================
SP> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 05:05:01 -0500, "Jack D. Russell, Sr."
BC>>> That is a completely false statement. Any and all who read this
BC>>> group are welcome to nominate, discuss and vote for the next
BC>>> Pricelessware list.
JDR>>
JDR>> ...but the final tally won't be made until (or as soon as) the
JDR>> wishes of the clique are ahead in the voting.
SP> As it's all done in the group, Jack, I'm sure you'll be able to
SP> collate the evidence very easily to back up your assertion, won't
SP> you?
SP> Oh, and who are the clique? Don't be coy. Name names. I'm sure
SP> we all want to know who it is you're sniping at in your feeble
SP> way. In case you're going to hide behind the winky smiley, you
SP> can have one from me. The semi-colon and right bracket doesn't
SP> alter deliberate unpleasantness whether it's from you or from me
SP>
It'd be a total waste of time, preaching to the choir.
"Preaching to the choir" means talking to those who already agree with
you, Jack. I suspect you mean the opposite here. Perhaps you should
leave metaphor to those who understand it.
If you look above, you'll see that your original accusation was about
the Pricelessware vote, not the site vote. Why did you change horses
in midstream, Jack? Was it because you were totally wrong?
If you
find the whole fiasco unpleasant...<Shrug>. Now, tell everybody how
that decision was reached fairly, above board, giving all participants
in this group a chance to voice their opinion, etc. Now,
everybody...on three...one...two...sing loudly...three!
Can't prove your first assertion so you make up a new one and you make
no attempt to prove that either. You're trolling, Jack. Shame on me
that I rose to it.
J
Jack D. Russell, Sr.
======================================================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup: alt.comp.freeware
* Reply to: All; "Semolina Pilchard" <[email protected]>
* Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:44:26 +0100
* Subj: Re: Add Gaim to pricelessware
======================================================================
SP> "Preaching to the choir" means talking to those who already agree
SP> with you, Jack. I suspect you mean the opposite here. Perhaps
SP> you should leave metaphor to those who understand it.
JDR>> But...
JDR>> One has to look no further than the shotgun vote to move the
JDR>> pricelessware list to you guy's (You know who you are.) site.
SP> If you look above, you'll see that your original accusation was
SP> about the Pricelessware vote, not the site vote. Why did you
SP> change horses in midstream, Jack? Was it because you were
SP> totally wrong?
BS...my original accusation was about votes taken in this group by the
clique...period. Your attempt to narrow the definition to backup your
argument doesn't wash.
JDR>> If you
JDR>> find the whole fiasco unpleasant...<Shrug>. Now, tell everybody
JDR>> how that decision was reached fairly, above board, giving all
JDR>> participants in this group a chance to voice their opinion,
etc.
JDR>> Now, everybody...on three...one...two...sing loudly...three!
SP> Can't prove your first assertion so you make up a new one and you
SP> make no attempt to prove that either. You're trolling, Jack.
SP> Shame on me that I rose to it.
Another clique member who only sees what they want to see. Your mind
reading abilities need work. Nobody changed horses...only in your
mind. Proof was offered. That you refuse to see it goes hand in hand
with the clique mentality of your group."You said it, so it must be
right.". Everybody outside of the clique knows what's what. Votes
taken by the clique are worthless. You people *DO NOT* represent the
wishes of the majority of this group's participants. You are right
about one thing though...You should *ALL* be ashamed about what you've
done to this group. EOC.
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup: alt.comp.freeware
* Reply to: All; "Semolina Pilchard" <[email protected]>
* Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:44:26 +0100
* Subj: Re: Add Gaim to pricelessware
======================================================================
SP> "Preaching to the choir" means talking to those who already agree
SP> with you, Jack. I suspect you mean the opposite here. Perhaps
SP> you should leave metaphor to those who understand it.
JDR>> But...
JDR>> One has to look no further than the shotgun vote to move the
JDR>> pricelessware list to you guy's (You know who you are.) site.
SP> If you look above, you'll see that your original accusation was
SP> about the Pricelessware vote, not the site vote. Why did you
SP> change horses in midstream, Jack? Was it because you were
SP> totally wrong?
BS...my original accusation was about votes taken in this group by the
clique...period. Your attempt to narrow the definition to backup your
argument doesn't wash.
JDR>> If you
JDR>> find the whole fiasco unpleasant...<Shrug>. Now, tell everybody
JDR>> how that decision was reached fairly, above board, giving all
JDR>> participants in this group a chance to voice their opinion,
etc.
JDR>> Now, everybody...on three...one...two...sing loudly...three!
SP> Can't prove your first assertion so you make up a new one and you
SP> make no attempt to prove that either. You're trolling, Jack.
SP> Shame on me that I rose to it.
Another clique member who only sees what they want to see. Your mind
reading abilities need work. Nobody changed horses...only in your
mind. Proof was offered. That you refuse to see it goes hand in hand
with the clique mentality of your group."You said it, so it must be
right.". Everybody outside of the clique knows what's what. Votes
taken by the clique are worthless. You people *DO NOT* represent the
wishes of the majority of this group's participants. You are right
about one thing though...You should *ALL* be ashamed about what you've
done to this group. EOC.
S
Semolina Pilchard
Nonsense. It's there in the thread. It's so hard to lie in usenet
when everyone can check what you said last, Jack.
You've offered no proof or evidence. You've just moved from one
unsupported assertion to another.
I don't refuse to see anything. What you're seeing is the product of
your own disturbed mind. Get help.
Oh, and I agree. EOC. You're incapable of rational discussion.
R
REM
It'd be a total waste of time, preaching to the choir. But...
One has to look no further than the shotgun vote to move the
pricelessware list to you guy's (You know who you are.) site. If you
find the whole fiasco unpleasant...<Shrug>. Now, tell everybody how
that decision was reached fairly, above board, giving all participants
in this group a chance to voice their opinion, etc. Now,
everybody...on three...one...two...sing loudly...three!
My gosh Jack. What would you propose? A never ending open-ended vote?
How can it possibly be determined exactly how many ACF readers wish to express
a preference? How can it be known who is on holiday?
What exactly would it require to appease you? (not rhetorical)
I'm thinking, and I cannot think of a single constructive thing you have ever
posted here. I can't recall you volunteering to assist with the huge job of
going through a PL vote, or nominating, or voting, or discussing in a
constructive manner.
You have these negative hit and run gripes. I think "net-grump" everytime I see
your posts because that is all that you have offered to ACF or to PL for the
going on 3 years I've read the group.
If you have any 'constructive' proposals... make them.
If you have any 'constructive' freeware knowledge... post it.
If you want to volunteer to count votes or anything else that might assist in
the vote... do so.
Otherwise, the obvious question is what stake do you have in any of this anyway?
When the vote is over visit whichever reporting site you choose to visit.
Susan has done a superb job in the past and I'm certain it will only get better
via experience.
Garrett has a HUGE job at hand, but I fully expect that he also will do a superb
job. His experience is in other sites recently, but that's still experience to
bank on.
So, what exactly is the deal? Is it just grump time? Does an "orderly" voting
process disturb you? Would you like to do the job? Nominate yourself and we will
vote.
C
Chris Wood
B
Ben Cooper
Jack D. Russell said:SP> "Preaching to the choir" means talking to those who already agree
SP> with you, Jack. I suspect you mean the opposite here. Perhaps
SP> you should leave metaphor to those who understand it.
JDR>> But...
JDR>> One has to look no further than the shotgun vote to move the
JDR>> pricelessware list to you guy's (You know who you are.) site.
SP> If you look above, you'll see that your original accusation was
SP> about the Pricelessware vote, not the site vote. Why did you
SP> change horses in midstream, Jack? Was it because you were
SP> totally wrong?
BS...my original accusation was about votes taken in this group by the
clique...period. Your attempt to narrow the definition to backup your
argument doesn't wash.
JDR>> If you
JDR>> find the whole fiasco unpleasant...<Shrug>. Now, tell everybody
JDR>> how that decision was reached fairly, above board, giving all
JDR>> participants in this group a chance to voice their opinion,
etc.
JDR>> Now, everybody...on three...one...two...sing loudly...three!
SP> Can't prove your first assertion so you make up a new one and you
SP> make no attempt to prove that either. You're trolling, Jack.
SP> Shame on me that I rose to it.
Another clique member who only sees what they want to see. Your mind
reading abilities need work. Nobody changed horses...only in your
mind. Proof was offered. That you refuse to see it goes hand in hand
with the clique mentality of your group."You said it, so it must be
right.". Everybody outside of the clique knows what's what. Votes
taken by the clique are worthless. You people *DO NOT* represent the
wishes of the majority of this group's participants. You are right
about one thing though...You should *ALL* be ashamed about what you've
done to this group. EOC.
"clique", "clique", "clique", "clique"... hmmm, looks like your
lighter's out of fluid. No flame war for you.
B
Ben Cooper
Chris Wood said:
I agree, there should be mention on that page that nominations for
programs should only be posted when there is a call for nominations.
( I changed the subject so that, hopefully, Susan will catch it.
)
J
Jack D. Russell, Sr.
======================================================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup: alt.comp.freeware
* Reply to: All; "Semolina Pilchard" <[email protected]>
* Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 06:55:36 -0500
* Subj: Re: Add Gaim to pricelessware
======================================================================
SP> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:02:57 -0500, "Jack D. Russell, Sr."
JDR>> Another clique member who only sees what they want to see. Your
JDR>> mind reading abilities need work. Nobody changed horses...only
JDR>> in your mind.
SP> Nonsense. It's there in the thread. It's so hard to lie in
SP> usenet when everyone can check what you said last, Jack.
More BS. What you read and what I typed are two different things entirely. You interpreted what I typed to benefit your argument. That doesn't change anything. The vote I was referring to was the vote by your clique to move the PWL to Susan's site. I see no reason to believe that any future voting initiated by your group would be any different.
JDR>> Proof was offered.
SP> You've offered no proof or evidence. You've just moved from one
SP> unsupported assertion to another.
Maybe "proof" (which I don't owe you anyway, as you were a part of the "Shotgun Vote" to move) isn't the correct word to use. I offered an example of what I was referring to as a type of proof. You don't accept that example as you think that vote was just fine, while the opposite is true in the minds of most fair minded people in this group. So, you resort to petty sniping and name calling to support your position, hoping that I'll engage in a battle of semantics with you about my statement. Not going to happen. I don't care what you think of me or my posts here. I've stated before (and it's still VERY true) that I have no desire to be part of the clique here, so there's no reason I should try to change your thinking. I'll post my opinions whenever I choose
whether you (or your clique) agree with them or not...period.
JDR >> That you refuse to see it goes hand in hand
JDR>> with the clique mentality of your group."You said it, so it must
JDR>> be right.". Everybody outside of the clique knows what's what.
JDR>> Votes taken by the clique are worthless. You people *DO NOT*
JDR>> represent the wishes of the majority of this group's
JDR>> participants. You are right about one thing though...You should
JDR>> *ALL* be ashamed about what you've done to this group. EOC.
SP> I don't refuse to see anything. What you're seeing is the
SP> product of your own disturbed mind. Get help.
SP> Oh, and I agree. EOC. You're incapable of rational discussion.
Typical. I'm not the one with the disturbed mind. I'm entirely more than capable of rational discussion. I just don't choose to waste my time discussing issues rationally with an irrational clique. "Your way or the highway". You're dismissed...EOC. You can have the last word. I'm sure that the group is weary enough of all of this anyway.
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup: alt.comp.freeware
* Reply to: All; "Semolina Pilchard" <[email protected]>
* Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 06:55:36 -0500
* Subj: Re: Add Gaim to pricelessware
======================================================================
SP> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:02:57 -0500, "Jack D. Russell, Sr."
JDR>> Another clique member who only sees what they want to see. Your
JDR>> mind reading abilities need work. Nobody changed horses...only
JDR>> in your mind.
SP> Nonsense. It's there in the thread. It's so hard to lie in
SP> usenet when everyone can check what you said last, Jack.
More BS. What you read and what I typed are two different things entirely. You interpreted what I typed to benefit your argument. That doesn't change anything. The vote I was referring to was the vote by your clique to move the PWL to Susan's site. I see no reason to believe that any future voting initiated by your group would be any different.
JDR>> Proof was offered.
SP> You've offered no proof or evidence. You've just moved from one
SP> unsupported assertion to another.
Maybe "proof" (which I don't owe you anyway, as you were a part of the "Shotgun Vote" to move) isn't the correct word to use. I offered an example of what I was referring to as a type of proof. You don't accept that example as you think that vote was just fine, while the opposite is true in the minds of most fair minded people in this group. So, you resort to petty sniping and name calling to support your position, hoping that I'll engage in a battle of semantics with you about my statement. Not going to happen. I don't care what you think of me or my posts here. I've stated before (and it's still VERY true) that I have no desire to be part of the clique here, so there's no reason I should try to change your thinking. I'll post my opinions whenever I choose
whether you (or your clique) agree with them or not...period.
JDR >> That you refuse to see it goes hand in hand
JDR>> with the clique mentality of your group."You said it, so it must
JDR>> be right.". Everybody outside of the clique knows what's what.
JDR>> Votes taken by the clique are worthless. You people *DO NOT*
JDR>> represent the wishes of the majority of this group's
JDR>> participants. You are right about one thing though...You should
JDR>> *ALL* be ashamed about what you've done to this group. EOC.
SP> I don't refuse to see anything. What you're seeing is the
SP> product of your own disturbed mind. Get help.
SP> Oh, and I agree. EOC. You're incapable of rational discussion.
Typical. I'm not the one with the disturbed mind. I'm entirely more than capable of rational discussion. I just don't choose to waste my time discussing issues rationally with an irrational clique. "Your way or the highway". You're dismissed...EOC. You can have the last word. I'm sure that the group is weary enough of all of this anyway.
J
Jack D. Russell, Sr.
======================================================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup: alt.comp.freeware
* Reply to: All; "REM" <[email protected]>
* Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:24:50 -0500
* Subj: Re: Add Gaim to pricelessware
======================================================================
JDR>> It'd be a total waste of time, preaching to the choir. But...
JDR>> One has to look no further than the shotgun vote to move the
JDR>> pricelessware list to you guy's (You know who you are.) site. If
JDR>> you find the whole fiasco unpleasant...<Shrug>. Now, tell
JDR>> everybody how that decision was reached fairly, above board,
JDR>> giving all participants in this group a chance to voice their
JDR>> opinion, etc. Now, everybody...on three...one...two...sing
JDR>> loudly...three!
R> My gosh Jack. What would you propose? A never ending open-ended
R> vote? How can it possibly be determined exactly how many ACF
R> readers wish to express a preference? How can it be known who is
R> on holiday?
No...Do you think that the vote to move, etc. was long enough for all participants to see that there was a vote going on and to voice their wishes? Do you think that the information provided by Susan was fair and complete and unbiased. Do you think that 34 votes to move the PWL constitutes a fair decision by ALL participants of this group?
R> What exactly would it require to appease you? (not rhetorical)
An announcement that a vote was going to happen. The reasons for the vote posted with *ALL* information available, listed and available to *ALL* participants here, so *ALL* that wished to vote could make an informed decision. A fair time frame for ALL group participants that want to vote to realize it and voice an opinion. A week at least, probably longer. There were no pressing emergencies or deadlines looming.
R> I'm thinking, and I cannot think of a single constructive thing
R> you have ever posted here. I can't recall you volunteering to
R> assist with the huge job of going through a PL vote, or
R> nominating, or voting, or discussing in a constructive manner.
Even if all of those accusations were true (they're not, BTW), does that mean that I'm not a participant of this group? What is your definition of a participant here? You should think longer before leveling false accusations against someone, IMHO. I think that it would be fair to say (And I've said it before) that MOST participants in this group rarely post, rarely offer an opinion, are NOT members of a clique, and rarely participate actively. That doesn't mean that they're not participants here.
R> You have these negative hit and run gripes. I think "net-grump"
R> everytime I see your posts because that is all that you have
R> offered to ACF or to PL for the going on 3 years I've read the
R> group.
Your opinion, however erred. I'm not trying to win a popularity contest here or anywhere else. I don't keep track of help and advice that I'm able to offer anyone in a group. I'm not in it to see my name in lights. I do what I can when I can. I don't feel a need to appease you or anyone else. If that's not to your taste...<shrug>.
R> If you have any 'constructive' proposals... make them.
I have no desire to help the clique and nothing to offer them save my distaste for the way that they operate.
R> If you have any 'constructive' freeware knowledge... post it.
I do when I can and when I've a desire to. If you don't see that, fine. I don't have to prove anything to you. Like I said above, I don't have any desire to appease those that keep score. I don't keep score, thus my posting preferences.
R> If you want to volunteer to count votes or anything else that
R> might assist in the vote... do so.
No thanks. See above.
R> Otherwise, the obvious question is what stake do you have in any
R> of this anyway?
None, other than to call attention to unfair practices when I see them and voice an opinion.
R> When the vote is over visit whichever reporting site you choose to
R> visit.
Oh, I will, but I don't need an invitation from you or anyone else to do so.
R> Susan has done a superb job in the past and I'm certain it will
R> only get better via experience.
No argument regarding Susan's work. Only the sneaky, uncooperative, paranoid way that she tried to slander and undermine the efforts of those that came before her. IMHO. What goes around, comes around.
R> Garrett has a HUGE job at hand, but I fully expect that he also
R> will do a superb job. His experience is in other sites recently,
R> but that's still experience to bank on.
No argument against Garrett. I'm sure that he'll do just fine. Hopefully without any of the "Monsters under the bed" problems of his predecessor.
R> So, what exactly is the deal? Is it just grump time? Does an
R> "orderly" voting process disturb you? Would you like to do the
R> job? Nominate yourself and we will vote.
Again, your opinion. You're entitled to it however right or wrong it may be. Just as I'm entitled to mine...popular, OK with you, or not.
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup: alt.comp.freeware
* Reply to: All; "REM" <[email protected]>
* Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:24:50 -0500
* Subj: Re: Add Gaim to pricelessware
======================================================================
JDR>> It'd be a total waste of time, preaching to the choir. But...
JDR>> One has to look no further than the shotgun vote to move the
JDR>> pricelessware list to you guy's (You know who you are.) site. If
JDR>> you find the whole fiasco unpleasant...<Shrug>. Now, tell
JDR>> everybody how that decision was reached fairly, above board,
JDR>> giving all participants in this group a chance to voice their
JDR>> opinion, etc. Now, everybody...on three...one...two...sing
JDR>> loudly...three!
R> My gosh Jack. What would you propose? A never ending open-ended
R> vote? How can it possibly be determined exactly how many ACF
R> readers wish to express a preference? How can it be known who is
R> on holiday?
No...Do you think that the vote to move, etc. was long enough for all participants to see that there was a vote going on and to voice their wishes? Do you think that the information provided by Susan was fair and complete and unbiased. Do you think that 34 votes to move the PWL constitutes a fair decision by ALL participants of this group?
R> What exactly would it require to appease you? (not rhetorical)
An announcement that a vote was going to happen. The reasons for the vote posted with *ALL* information available, listed and available to *ALL* participants here, so *ALL* that wished to vote could make an informed decision. A fair time frame for ALL group participants that want to vote to realize it and voice an opinion. A week at least, probably longer. There were no pressing emergencies or deadlines looming.
R> I'm thinking, and I cannot think of a single constructive thing
R> you have ever posted here. I can't recall you volunteering to
R> assist with the huge job of going through a PL vote, or
R> nominating, or voting, or discussing in a constructive manner.
Even if all of those accusations were true (they're not, BTW), does that mean that I'm not a participant of this group? What is your definition of a participant here? You should think longer before leveling false accusations against someone, IMHO. I think that it would be fair to say (And I've said it before) that MOST participants in this group rarely post, rarely offer an opinion, are NOT members of a clique, and rarely participate actively. That doesn't mean that they're not participants here.
R> You have these negative hit and run gripes. I think "net-grump"
R> everytime I see your posts because that is all that you have
R> offered to ACF or to PL for the going on 3 years I've read the
R> group.
Your opinion, however erred. I'm not trying to win a popularity contest here or anywhere else. I don't keep track of help and advice that I'm able to offer anyone in a group. I'm not in it to see my name in lights. I do what I can when I can. I don't feel a need to appease you or anyone else. If that's not to your taste...<shrug>.
R> If you have any 'constructive' proposals... make them.
I have no desire to help the clique and nothing to offer them save my distaste for the way that they operate.
R> If you have any 'constructive' freeware knowledge... post it.
I do when I can and when I've a desire to. If you don't see that, fine. I don't have to prove anything to you. Like I said above, I don't have any desire to appease those that keep score. I don't keep score, thus my posting preferences.
R> If you want to volunteer to count votes or anything else that
R> might assist in the vote... do so.
No thanks. See above.
R> Otherwise, the obvious question is what stake do you have in any
R> of this anyway?
None, other than to call attention to unfair practices when I see them and voice an opinion.
R> When the vote is over visit whichever reporting site you choose to
R> visit.
Oh, I will, but I don't need an invitation from you or anyone else to do so.
R> Susan has done a superb job in the past and I'm certain it will
R> only get better via experience.
No argument regarding Susan's work. Only the sneaky, uncooperative, paranoid way that she tried to slander and undermine the efforts of those that came before her. IMHO. What goes around, comes around.
R> Garrett has a HUGE job at hand, but I fully expect that he also
R> will do a superb job. His experience is in other sites recently,
R> but that's still experience to bank on.
No argument against Garrett. I'm sure that he'll do just fine. Hopefully without any of the "Monsters under the bed" problems of his predecessor.
R> So, what exactly is the deal? Is it just grump time? Does an
R> "orderly" voting process disturb you? Would you like to do the
R> job? Nominate yourself and we will vote.
Again, your opinion. You're entitled to it however right or wrong it may be. Just as I'm entitled to mine...popular, OK with you, or not.
B
burnr
I'm not bothering replying to your other opinions. We all have them. I
particularly disagree with this one though. There was nothing sneaky,
uncooperative, or paranoid about Susans circumstance. A few people,
including you, for some reason felt/feel like you have a *right* to know
the details of the relationship between Susan and Genna and what led to
the break.
As I've posted before...it is none of my business, nor your's, nor anyone
else. All of the bitchin and moaning about why,why,why. It's frustrating.
I think Susans only mistake was that right up front she should have made
it perfectly clear that her personal circumstances would not be open for
discussion. You though had to keep on and on and on about a need to know
the details. This is a public forum, none of us have any *right* to any
such personal matters of others, Susans, Gennas, or anyone else. You
think because Susan is a webmaster of the PL she is obligated to this
forum to post details about her relationships which affect her continuing
on as webmaster? That's absurd.
The facts were plain and simple for all to see. The vote was a plain yes
or no decision. Support Susans continuation as webmaster of the PL at a
new site or not. Doesn't take a lot of thought or discussion to sort that
out. And as it worked out (for the better IMO) your preferred site still
exists, and Susan is continuing on with her excellent efforts. There is
no reason to believe that the PL will not be a stronger and more prolific
resource than ever before. Time to move on!
H
Hello
I hear you, the same thing happend at Aulis
R
REM
That's how I feel exactly. I probably could have done a better job in saying
this than you concisely did. I understand both the need for information and that
there was a reason it was confidential. There are two sides, but there was no
option available to satisify everyone.
In the end though, it's time to put the pieces back together and get back on
track at what the group excels in! Freeware, disecting, testing, verifying the
ware status and any limitations, malware identification in seemingly freeware
programs, ranking the programs that are similar, helping track down or
identifying programs, finding promising new programs, etc. as ACF.
In the future let's do organize a vote such as this more carefully so that as
Jack pointed out the readers have ample opportunity to form an opinion and give
a good vote. That's plenty rational.
I realize the discussion and the vote were very emotional for most of us. There
are certainly ho hard feelings from me, and I hope for all involved.
It's time now to turn the page and move on to more constructive endeavors.
R
REM
This was posted in thread: <[email protected]>
Look for subject starting with "[PL]"
I missed out myself awhile back. I had no idea what PL was. It is the
Pricelessware List.
I had assumed it would be "[PW]" but that's not the greatest designation I
guess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Proposed timetable for selection of the 2005 Pricelessware List:
NOMINATIONS and DISCUSSION (4 weeks): October 1 - October 28, 2004
VOTING (1 week): October 29 - Novermber 4, 2004
VOTE RESULTS POSTED: November 5, 2004
PRELIMINARY PRICELESSWARE LIST POSTED: November 6, 2005
FINAL SELECTION DISCUSSION (1 week): November 7 - November 13, 2004
FINAL PRICELESSWARE LIST POSTED: November 14, 2004
The discussion period will begin with the start of nominations.
Last year program descriptions were submitted with (or after) a program
was nominated. This year they may be submitted before nominations start
and *must* be submitted before a program can be nominated.
Proposed Procedure:
Programs descriptions may be submitted informally in the month preceding
the start of nominations. Submitting descriptions prior to the start of
nominations will greatly facilitate the nominating process.
Pricelessware 2004 programs and programs with verified descriptions will
be listed in the post that opens the Pricelessware Nominations.
Nominations and seconds may be made from that list.
A special thread will be used for program descriptions submitted
*during* the nomination process. A program may *not* be placed in
nomination until the program description has been verified.
Comments?
Susan
G
Garrett
Jack D. Russell, Sr. wrote:
[snip]
I see a nice and proper announcement regarding the up and coming vote
process for Pricelessware, which is how many months away? And my oh
my, the subject line is correctly labeled, and the information
contained therein is well layed out and informative. I wonder why the
vote to move the site was not conducted like this?
I know... I'm adding fuel to an already burnt out subject. But I can
see where Jack is coming from, since this was my argument all along,
but those siding with Susan did nothing but jump me and hump me in
order to distort the whole point and to force everyone to accept what
had happened as an official event. To me, the whole event lacked good
form, good faith, trust, honesty and fairness. It was tainted from the
get go, it was rushed, it wasn't properly announced and it was hidden
in a mislabeled thread. The thread was so long with exccessive
flaming, that if anyone did venture into it, they would have quickly
gotten lost and or disinterested in the thread and would not have known
that a vote was being quickly conducted in there.
And when I did bring this to the attention of the group, the issues
were never addressed at all, but merely dismissed as the ramblings of
an ass. The arguements made by the those who wished to keep the
events as is, did not even adddress the issues at all. Not one of them
was able to refute my claims of foul play, dishonesty and unfairness
with regards to the so called vote they held. To this day, they still
try to avoid the issue because they know what they did was not dishonest
and unfair. It was just wrong... But since it served their
purpose, it's deemed as legit. And don't try to argue with them,
because you'll get beaten down with unfounded accusations and
intentional misinformation. And they aren't nice about it at all
either.
I'm still waiting for a proper vote to be conducted on this matter, but
I'm sure that if anyone tries to initiate such, they will quickly get
jumped, beaten and discredited as being a Troll, Trouble Maker,
Miscreant and anything else to deny the possibility of a proper vote
being conducted which just might change the outcome of the previous
event.
Well, don't anyone make a big fuss about my post.. After all, it's just
the ramblings of someone in this group that doesn't matter anyway. But
thanks for letting me vent this out, which is really all I'm doing here.
Now I need to get back to working on the site before Ben sees me here
and gets on me about not removing his name yet..... Heheheheee... I'll
get to it, and oh yes, Omar also...
In fact, I'll try to take care of that today since I'm taking a break.
-Garrett
[snip]
I see a nice and proper announcement regarding the up and coming vote
process for Pricelessware, which is how many months away? And my oh
my, the subject line is correctly labeled, and the information
contained therein is well layed out and informative. I wonder why the
vote to move the site was not conducted like this?
I know... I'm adding fuel to an already burnt out subject. But I can
see where Jack is coming from, since this was my argument all along,
but those siding with Susan did nothing but jump me and hump me in
order to distort the whole point and to force everyone to accept what
had happened as an official event. To me, the whole event lacked good
form, good faith, trust, honesty and fairness. It was tainted from the
get go, it was rushed, it wasn't properly announced and it was hidden
in a mislabeled thread. The thread was so long with exccessive
flaming, that if anyone did venture into it, they would have quickly
gotten lost and or disinterested in the thread and would not have known
that a vote was being quickly conducted in there.
And when I did bring this to the attention of the group, the issues
were never addressed at all, but merely dismissed as the ramblings of
an ass. The arguements made by the those who wished to keep the
events as is, did not even adddress the issues at all. Not one of them
was able to refute my claims of foul play, dishonesty and unfairness
with regards to the so called vote they held. To this day, they still
try to avoid the issue because they know what they did was not dishonest
and unfair. It was just wrong... But since it served their
purpose, it's deemed as legit. And don't try to argue with them,
because you'll get beaten down with unfounded accusations and
intentional misinformation. And they aren't nice about it at all
either.
I'm still waiting for a proper vote to be conducted on this matter, but
I'm sure that if anyone tries to initiate such, they will quickly get
jumped, beaten and discredited as being a Troll, Trouble Maker,
Miscreant and anything else to deny the possibility of a proper vote
being conducted which just might change the outcome of the previous
event.
Well, don't anyone make a big fuss about my post.. After all, it's just
the ramblings of someone in this group that doesn't matter anyway. But
thanks for letting me vent this out, which is really all I'm doing here.
Now I need to get back to working on the site before Ben sees me here
and gets on me about not removing his name yet..... Heheheheee... I'll
get to it, and oh yes, Omar also...
In fact, I'll try to take care of that today since I'm taking a break.
-Garrett
J
jo
Garrett said:
Never the boy to move on are we ducks? There'll be another of these
posts from you or Genna in a few weeks.
S
Susan Bugher
Garrett said:
It really didn't seem necessary. There was NO vote at all when the
pricelessware.org move was made. As someone said "It was a no-brainer".
This latest move seemed like a no-brainer too. . . it was turned into a
war - the reasons for *opposing* a move to a new web host have never
been clear. . . lots of heat, *no* light. . .
I know... I'm adding fuel to an already burnt out subject. But I can
see where Jack is coming from, since this was my argument all along,
but those siding with Susan did nothing but jump me and hump me in
order to distort the whole point and to force everyone to accept what
had happened as an official event. To me, the whole event lacked good
form, good faith, trust, honesty and fairness. It was tainted from the
get go, it was rushed, it wasn't properly announced and it was hidden
in a mislabeled thread. The thread was so long with exccessive
flaming, that if anyone did venture into it, they would have quickly
gotten lost and or disinterested in the thread and would not have known
that a vote was being quickly conducted in there.
And when I did bring this to the attention of the group, the issues
were never addressed at all, but merely dismissed as the ramblings of
an ass. The arguements made by the those who wished to keep the
events as is, did not even adddress the issues at all. Not one of them
was able to refute my claims of foul play, dishonesty and unfairness
with regards to the so called vote they held. To this day, they still
try to avoid the issue because they know what they did was not dishonest
and unfair. It was just wrong... But since it served their
purpose, it's deemed as legit. And don't try to argue with them,
because you'll get beaten down with unfounded accusations and
intentional misinformation. And they aren't nice about it at all
either.
I'm still waiting for a proper vote to be conducted on this matter, but
I'm sure that if anyone tries to initiate such, they will quickly get
jumped, beaten and discredited as being a Troll, Trouble Maker,
Miscreant and anything else to deny the possibility of a proper vote
being conducted which just might change the outcome of the previous
event.
Well, don't anyone make a big fuss about my post.. After all, it's just
the ramblings of someone in this group that doesn't matter anyway. But
thanks for letting me vent this out, which is really all I'm doing here.
Now I need to get back to working on the site before Ben sees me here
and gets on me about not removing his name yet..... Heheheheee... I'll
get to it, and oh yes, Omar also...
In fact, I'll try to take care of that today since I'm taking a break.
-Garrett
Nice of you to take the time to fan those dying embers. Peace might
break out if you weren't so vigilant. . .
Susan
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
<
[about the voting to move the PL]
[snip]
It was in two threads, with several other threads also containing
discussion about it. I agree with most of your criticisms of how it
was handled, but I don't see what good it does to keep bringing it
up.
On 2 July, Sietse Fliege started exactly such a clearly-labeled
thread to discuss a possible vote about that stuff. As I recall it,
he was not flamed or called a troll, and both you and Susan responded
that you didn't think any vote was desirable at the time.
<is Sietse's post.
I don't think any new vote is needed, either. However one interprets
the voting about moving the PL, it was clear that there was strong
support for Susan et al. using a different host and domain for the
PL. And when you posted that you would be maintaining the PL at
pricelessware.org, there was strong support for you to do so.
If anyone wants to start a discussion leading to a vote about whether
there should be an "official" site for the PL and if so what site it
should be, I hope that it can wait until after the 2005 PL voting so
we can first see how things are handled under this new two-site
situation.
[about the voting to move the PL]
[snip]
It was in two threads, with several other threads also containing
discussion about it. I agree with most of your criticisms of how it
was handled, but I don't see what good it does to keep bringing it
up.
On 2 July, Sietse Fliege started exactly such a clearly-labeled
thread to discuss a possible vote about that stuff. As I recall it,
he was not flamed or called a troll, and both you and Susan responded
that you didn't think any vote was desirable at the time.
<is Sietse's post.
I don't think any new vote is needed, either. However one interprets
the voting about moving the PL, it was clear that there was strong
support for Susan et al. using a different host and domain for the
PL. And when you posted that you would be maintaining the PL at
pricelessware.org, there was strong support for you to do so.
If anyone wants to start a discussion leading to a vote about whether
there should be an "official" site for the PL and if so what site it
should be, I hope that it can wait until after the 2005 PL voting so
we can first see how things are handled under this new two-site
situation.
K
Klaatu
Jebus Cribe. Cry me a ****ing river why don't you.
Get over yourself. The home of pricelessware is pricelesswarehome.org, and
"your" site is just another two-bit wannabe has-been site. You're just like
all those Al Gore nutjobs complaining how the election was stolen from you
and now you want to piss and moan at the ****ing world how it's so unfair!
Well, bo-****ing-ho. You lost, someone else won. Too ****ing bad for you.
Move. On.