Re: IOM nomination

Dally said:

Charles said:

I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.

I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?

If a fat-arsed trollop who is the subject and cause of the dispute is
able to spitefully second a nomination, then it is only proper that a
supporting "symbiote" of the nominee is allowed to exercise his quite
proper privilege vote of veto!!

MFW despite all it's faults is a democracy and Art is well versed in
the rules of conduct for the IOM award!

"Dally" asked

Quoted message said:

Charles said:

I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.

I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?

I always get it confused.

Which one is the host and which one is the symbiote?

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dally said:

Charles said:

I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.

I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?

If a fat-arsed trollop who is the subject and cause of the dispute is
able to spitefully second a nomination, then it is only proper that a
supporting "symbiote" of the nominee is allowed to exercise his quite
proper privilege vote of veto!!

MFW despite all it's faults is a democracy and Art is well versed in
the rules of conduct for the IOM award!

Having researched Bill Robert's original comments when he instituted the
ability to veto (below), I am going to rule that your veto, as made above,
does not meet the requirements and is disallowed. I'm also ruling that,
since Donovan provided reasons for the nomination, the nomination will
stand even though Donovan is/was a participant in the discussion.

Art

From "IOM Nominations/seconds: rule addition" by Bill Roberts on March
5, 1998:

"Since there can be a problem with bogus nominations (although most of
our candidates this month were QUITE deserving) and yet I don't want
to be in the position of ruling on whether nominations are good or not,
here is a new solution which will be in effect now:

"If anyone believes that a nomination is bogus -- does not meet the
rules for IOM -- he or she can post a veto to the nomination, or to
the second. (Candidates may not post vetos.)

"Vetos can be overruled by nomination and/or second by persons other than
the original two. If and only if a new nomination and second is made,
then it will stand and that candidate will be on the ballot."

"I hope this will prove a fair way of avoiding having people on the
ballot who shouldn't be there. For example, it just isn't right that
a person who posted a question (even an unknowing one) should get
on the ballot, or be nominated at all, simply for asking a question
on something he didn't understand. That shouldn't happen.

Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply because
they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and factually, and
the people they argued with counterattack by nominating them for IOM,
thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such arguments, it really would
be higher class to let observers make the nomination, because it is all
too easy to be biased oneself when immersed in an argument."

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:14:35 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dally said:

Charles wrote:

> I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.

I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?

If a fat-arsed trollop who is the subject and cause of the dispute is
able to spitefully second a nomination, then it is only proper that a
supporting "symbiote" of the nominee is allowed to exercise his quite
proper privilege vote of veto!!

MFW despite all it's faults is a democracy and Art is well versed in
the rules of conduct for the IOM award!

Having researched Bill Robert's original comments when he instituted the
ability to veto (below), I am going to rule that your veto, as made above,
does not meet the requirements and is disallowed. I'm also ruling that,
since Donovan provided reasons for the nomination, the nomination will
stand even though Donovan is/was a participant in the discussion.

Art

From "IOM Nominations/seconds: rule addition" by Bill Roberts on March
5, 1998:

"Since there can be a problem with bogus nominations (although most of
our candidates this month were QUITE deserving) and yet I don't want
to be in the position of ruling on whether nominations are good or not,
here is a new solution which will be in effect now:

"If anyone believes that a nomination is bogus -- does not meet the
rules for IOM -- he or she can post a veto to the nomination, or to
the second. (Candidates may not post vetos.)

"Vetos can be overruled by nomination and/or second by persons other than
the original two. If and only if a new nomination and second is made,
then it will stand and that candidate will be on the ballot."

"I hope this will prove a fair way of avoiding having people on the
ballot who shouldn't be there. For example, it just isn't right that
a person who posted a question (even an unknowing one) should get
on the ballot, or be nominated at all, simply for asking a question
on something he didn't understand. That shouldn't happen.

Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply because
they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and factually, and
the people they argued with counterattack by nominating them for IOM,
thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such arguments, it really would
be higher class to let observers make the nomination, because it is all
too easy to be biased oneself when immersed in an argument."

Then I re-submit a veto on the grounds of:

"Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply
because they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and
factually, and the people they argued with counterattack by nominating
them for IOM, thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such
arguments, it really would be higher class to let observers make the
nomination, because it is all too easy to be biased oneself when
immersed in an argument."

Donovan quite clearly made a mountain out of a mole-hill and when he
was clearly having difficulty with David the Oz's tenacity and factual
presentation, which was supported by other creditable contributors, he
resorted to an IOM nomination, which was spurious and ill-willed.

If the IOM award is to be re-introduced then it must be seen that the
IOM Adjudicator is not biased one way or the other by the popularity
or otherwise of the participating parties.

Charles said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:14:35 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:11:23 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>
>> I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.
>
>I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?

If a fat-arsed trollop who is the subject and cause of the dispute is
able to spitefully second a nomination, then it is only proper that a
supporting "symbiote" of the nominee is allowed to exercise his quite
proper privilege vote of veto!!

MFW despite all it's faults is a democracy and Art is well versed in
the rules of conduct for the IOM award!

Having researched Bill Robert's original comments when he instituted the
ability to veto (below), I am going to rule that your veto, as made above,
does not meet the requirements and is disallowed. I'm also ruling that,
since Donovan provided reasons for the nomination, the nomination will
stand even though Donovan is/was a participant in the discussion.

Art

From "IOM Nominations/seconds: rule addition" by Bill Roberts on March
5, 1998:

"Since there can be a problem with bogus nominations (although most of
our candidates this month were QUITE deserving) and yet I don't want
to be in the position of ruling on whether nominations are good or not,
here is a new solution which will be in effect now:

"If anyone believes that a nomination is bogus -- does not meet the
rules for IOM -- he or she can post a veto to the nomination, or to
the second. (Candidates may not post vetos.)

"Vetos can be overruled by nomination and/or second by persons other than
the original two. If and only if a new nomination and second is made,
then it will stand and that candidate will be on the ballot."

"I hope this will prove a fair way of avoiding having people on the
ballot who shouldn't be there. For example, it just isn't right that
a person who posted a question (even an unknowing one) should get
on the ballot, or be nominated at all, simply for asking a question
on something he didn't understand. That shouldn't happen.

Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply because
they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and factually, and
the people they argued with counterattack by nominating them for IOM,
thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such arguments, it really would
be higher class to let observers make the nomination, because it is all
too easy to be biased oneself when immersed in an argument."

Then I re-submit a veto on the grounds of:

"Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply
because they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and
factually, and the people they argued with counterattack by nominating
them for IOM, thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such
arguments, it really would be higher class to let observers make the
nomination, because it is all too easy to be biased oneself when
immersed in an argument."

Donovan quite clearly made a mountain out of a mole-hill and when he
was clearly having difficulty with David the Oz's tenacity and factual
presentation, which was supported by other creditable contributors, he
resorted to an IOM nomination, which was spurious and ill-willed.

If the IOM award is to be re-introduced then it must be seen that the
IOM Adjudicator is not biased one way or the other by the popularity
or otherwise of the participating parties.

In support of my nomination for the IOM to be awarded to Donovan, I
amplify my proposal by drawing the Group's attention to his crass
assertion that one person alone can be involved in an argument, which
he later exacerbated by defending that assertion with a foolish
display of evasion by semantics.

In article <[email hidden]>,
Charles <[email hidden]> writes:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

In support of my nomination for the IOM to be awarded to Donovan, I
amplify my proposal by drawing the Group's attention to his crass
assertion that one person alone can be involved in an argument, which
he later exacerbated by defending that assertion with a foolish
display of evasion by semantics.

Nonsense. He was clearly using the word "argument" in the sense of:

Main Entry: ar-gu-ment
Function: noun
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to
persuade
3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a
conclusion

I don't believe for a minute you didn't understand that at the time,
Charles, which is why I advised Donovan he was being trolled.

Now, one of two things are happening here: Either you were trolling
him at the time, and your nomination is therefor a fraud, or you
really don't understand the various possible meanings and usage of
the word "argument." Which is it to be?

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:22:29 -0000, [email hidden] (Richard "dopey

censored' Hedd) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Charles <[email hidden]> writes:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

In support of my nomination for the IOM to be awarded to Donovan, I
amplify my proposal by drawing the Group's attention to his crass
assertion that one person alone can be involved in an argument, which
he later exacerbated by defending that assertion with a foolish
display of evasion by semantics.

Nonsense. He was clearly using the word "argument" in the sense of:

Main Entry: ar-gu-ment
Function: noun
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to
persuade
3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a
conclusion

I don't believe for a minute you didn't understand that at the time,
Charles, which is why I advised Donovan he was being trolled.

Now, one of two things are happening here: Either you were trolling
him at the time, and your nomination is therefor a fraud, or you
really don't understand the various possible meanings and usage of
the word "argument." Which is it to be?

You are just [censored]-stirring Dopey, because you are aching to get into
this thread and no-one is in the slightest bit interested in anything
you have to say.

I suggest you go and have a nap! ;o)

HAGW!!

TFIF!

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:22:29 -0000, [email hidden] (Richard "dopey

censored' Hedd) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Charles <[email hidden]> writes:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

In support of my nomination for the IOM to be awarded to Donovan, I
amplify my proposal by drawing the Group's attention to his crass
assertion that one person alone can be involved in an argument, which
he later exacerbated by defending that assertion with a foolish
display of evasion by semantics.

Nonsense. He was clearly using the word "argument" in the sense of:

Main Entry: ar-gu-ment
Function: noun
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to
persuade
3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a
conclusion

I don't believe for a minute you didn't understand that at the time,
Charles, which is why I advised Donovan he was being trolled.

Now, one of two things are happening here: Either you were trolling
him at the time, and your nomination is therefor a fraud, or you
really don't understand the various possible meanings and usage of
the word "argument." Which is it to be?

You are just [censored]-stirring Dopey, because you are aching to get into
this thread and no-one is in the slightest bit interested in anything
you have to say.

I suggest you go and have a nap! ;o)

HAGW!!

TFIF!

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:22:29 -0000, [email hidden] (Richard "dopey

censored' Hedd) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Charles <[email hidden]> writes:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

In support of my nomination for the IOM to be awarded to Donovan, I
amplify my proposal by drawing the Group's attention to his crass
assertion that one person alone can be involved in an argument, which
he later exacerbated by defending that assertion with a foolish
display of evasion by semantics.

Nonsense. He was clearly using the word "argument" in the sense of:

Main Entry: ar-gu-ment
Function: noun
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to
persuade
3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a
conclusion

I don't believe for a minute you didn't understand that at the time,
Charles, which is why I advised Donovan he was being trolled.

Now, one of two things are happening here: Either you were trolling
him at the time, and your nomination is therefor a fraud, or you
really don't understand the various possible meanings and usage of
the word "argument." Which is it to be?

You are just [censored]-stirring Dopey, because you are aching to get into
this thread and no-one is in the slightest bit interested in anything
you have to say.

I suggest you go and have a nap! ;o)

HAGW!!

TFIF!

He is about to have his morning nap . . soon as the lady comes in with
his warm milk

In article <[email hidden]>,
Charles <[email hidden]> writes:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

You are just [censored]-stirring Dopey, because you are aching to get into
this thread

Doesn't posting to it get you "into" it?

Quoted message said:

and no-one is in the slightest bit interested in anything
you have to say.

You are quite possibly correct!

Quoted message said:

I suggest you go and have a nap! ;o)

Mmmm... nap 🙂

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:14:35 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:11:23 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>
>> I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.
>
>I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?

If a fat-arsed trollop who is the subject and cause of the dispute is
able to spitefully second a nomination, then it is only proper that a
supporting "symbiote" of the nominee is allowed to exercise his quite
proper privilege vote of veto!!

MFW despite all it's faults is a democracy and Art is well versed in
the rules of conduct for the IOM award!

Having researched Bill Robert's original comments when he instituted the
ability to veto (below), I am going to rule that your veto, as made above,
does not meet the requirements and is disallowed. I'm also ruling that,
since Donovan provided reasons for the nomination, the nomination will
stand even though Donovan is/was a participant in the discussion.

Art

From "IOM Nominations/seconds: rule addition" by Bill Roberts on March
5, 1998:

"Since there can be a problem with bogus nominations (although most of
our candidates this month were QUITE deserving) and yet I don't want
to be in the position of ruling on whether nominations are good or not,
here is a new solution which will be in effect now:

"If anyone believes that a nomination is bogus -- does not meet the
rules for IOM -- he or she can post a veto to the nomination, or to
the second. (Candidates may not post vetos.)

"Vetos can be overruled by nomination and/or second by persons other than
the original two. If and only if a new nomination and second is made,
then it will stand and that candidate will be on the ballot."

"I hope this will prove a fair way of avoiding having people on the
ballot who shouldn't be there. For example, it just isn't right that
a person who posted a question (even an unknowing one) should get
on the ballot, or be nominated at all, simply for asking a question
on something he didn't understand. That shouldn't happen.

Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply because
they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and factually, and
the people they argued with counterattack by nominating them for IOM,
thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such arguments, it really would
be higher class to let observers make the nomination, because it is all
too easy to be biased oneself when immersed in an argument."

Then I re-submit a veto on the grounds of:

"Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply
because they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and
factually, and the people they argued with counterattack by nominating
them for IOM, thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such
arguments, it really would be higher class to let observers make the
nomination, because it is all too easy to be biased oneself when
immersed in an argument."

Uh - reread the last sentence I wrote. Since Donovan listed reasons for
the nomination, I won't accept the above as a reason to veto.

Quoted message said:

Donovan quite clearly made a mountain out of a mole-hill and when he
was clearly having difficulty with David the Oz's tenacity and factual
presentation, which was supported by other creditable contributors, he
resorted to an IOM nomination, which was spurious and ill-willed.

Now that has potential. Care to amplify?

Quoted message said:

If the IOM award is to be re-introduced then it must be seen that the
IOM Adjudicator is not biased one way or the other by the popularity
or otherwise of the participating parties.

Why do I get the feeling that you are trying to manipulate me?

Art

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:14:35 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:11:23 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>Charles wrote:
>>
>>> I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.
>>
>>I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?
>
> If a fat-arsed trollop who is the subject and cause of the dispute is
> able to spitefully second a nomination, then it is only proper that a
> supporting "symbiote" of the nominee is allowed to exercise his quite
> proper privilege vote of veto!!
>
> MFW despite all it's faults is a democracy and Art is well versed in
> the rules of conduct for the IOM award!

Having researched Bill Robert's original comments when he instituted the
ability to veto (below), I am going to rule that your veto, as made

above,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

does not meet the requirements and is disallowed. I'm also ruling that,
since Donovan provided reasons for the nomination, the nomination will
stand even though Donovan is/was a participant in the discussion.

Art

From "IOM Nominations/seconds: rule addition" by Bill Roberts on March
5, 1998:

"Since there can be a problem with bogus nominations (although most of
our candidates this month were QUITE deserving) and yet I don't want
to be in the position of ruling on whether nominations are good or not,
here is a new solution which will be in effect now:

"If anyone believes that a nomination is bogus -- does not meet the
rules for IOM -- he or she can post a veto to the nomination, or to
the second. (Candidates may not post vetos.)

"Vetos can be overruled by nomination and/or second by persons other

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the original two. If and only if a new nomination and second is made,
then it will stand and that candidate will be on the ballot."

"I hope this will prove a fair way of avoiding having people on the
ballot who shouldn't be there. For example, it just isn't right that
a person who posted a question (even an unknowing one) should get
on the ballot, or be nominated at all, simply for asking a question
on something he didn't understand. That shouldn't happen.

Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply because
they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and factually, and
the people they argued with counterattack by nominating them for IOM,
thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such arguments, it really

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be higher class to let observers make the nomination, because it is all
too easy to be biased oneself when immersed in an argument."

Then I re-submit a veto on the grounds of:

"Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply
because they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and
factually, and the people they argued with counterattack by nominating
them for IOM, thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such
arguments, it really would be higher class to let observers make the
nomination, because it is all too easy to be biased oneself when
immersed in an argument."

Uh - reread the last sentence I wrote. Since Donovan listed reasons for
the nomination, I won't accept the above as a reason to veto.

Quoted message said:

Donovan quite clearly made a mountain out of a mole-hill and when he
was clearly having difficulty with David the Oz's tenacity and factual
presentation, which was supported by other creditable contributors, he
resorted to an IOM nomination, which was spurious and ill-willed.

Now that has potential. Care to amplify?

Quoted message said:

If the IOM award is to be re-introduced then it must be seen that the
IOM Adjudicator is not biased one way or the other by the popularity
or otherwise of the participating parties.

Why do I get the feeling that you are trying to manipulate me?

Art

Art, you need to have compassion here. An IOM award would look *very* bad on
my CV. If the truth be known, Donovan caught me and his wife (Charlene) in a
highly embarrassing position (some call it '69'😉 and this is just his way
of getting even. Please Art . . . we go back a long way (has it been 6
months now?) have a heart!

"David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Art S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why do I get the feeling that you are trying to manipulate me?

Art

Art, you need to have compassion here. An IOM award would look *very* bad on
my CV. If the truth be known, Donovan caught me and his wife (Charlene) in a
highly embarrassing position (some call it '69'😉 and this is just his way
of getting even. Please Art . . . we go back a long way (has it been 6
months now?) have a heart!

LOL

Art

In article <[email hidden]>,

Art S said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Donovan quite clearly made a mountain out of a mole-hill and when he
was clearly having difficulty with David the Oz's tenacity and factual
presentation, which was supported by other creditable contributors, he
resorted to an IOM nomination, which was spurious and ill-willed.

Now that has potential. Care to amplify?

[snip]

Yes, Charles, amplify 🙂.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:36:49 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:14:35 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:11:23 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>Charles wrote:
>>
>>> I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.
>>
>>I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?
>
> If a fat-arsed trollop who is the subject and cause of the dispute is
> able to spitefully second a nomination, then it is only proper that a
> supporting "symbiote" of the nominee is allowed to exercise his quite
> proper privilege vote of veto!!
>
> MFW despite all it's faults is a democracy and Art is well versed in
> the rules of conduct for the IOM award!

Having researched Bill Robert's original comments when he instituted the
ability to veto (below), I am going to rule that your veto, as made above,
does not meet the requirements and is disallowed. I'm also ruling that,
since Donovan provided reasons for the nomination, the nomination will
stand even though Donovan is/was a participant in the discussion.

Art

From "IOM Nominations/seconds: rule addition" by Bill Roberts on March
5, 1998:

"Since there can be a problem with bogus nominations (although most of
our candidates this month were QUITE deserving) and yet I don't want
to be in the position of ruling on whether nominations are good or not,
here is a new solution which will be in effect now:

"If anyone believes that a nomination is bogus -- does not meet the
rules for IOM -- he or she can post a veto to the nomination, or to
the second. (Candidates may not post vetos.)

"Vetos can be overruled by nomination and/or second by persons other than
the original two. If and only if a new nomination and second is made,
then it will stand and that candidate will be on the ballot."

"I hope this will prove a fair way of avoiding having people on the
ballot who shouldn't be there. For example, it just isn't right that
a person who posted a question (even an unknowing one) should get
on the ballot, or be nominated at all, simply for asking a question
on something he didn't understand. That shouldn't happen.

Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply because
they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and factually, and
the people they argued with counterattack by nominating them for IOM,
thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such arguments, it really would
be higher class to let observers make the nomination, because it is all
too easy to be biased oneself when immersed in an argument."

Then I re-submit a veto on the grounds of:

"Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply
because they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and
factually, and the people they argued with counterattack by nominating
them for IOM, thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such
arguments, it really would be higher class to let observers make the
nomination, because it is all too easy to be biased oneself when
immersed in an argument."

Uh - reread the last sentence I wrote. Since Donovan listed reasons for
the nomination, I won't accept the above as a reason to veto.

Quoted message said:

Donovan quite clearly made a mountain out of a mole-hill and when he
was clearly having difficulty with David the Oz's tenacity and factual
presentation, which was supported by other creditable contributors, he
resorted to an IOM nomination, which was spurious and ill-willed.

Now that has potential. Care to amplify?

To illustrate Donovan's determination to exaggerate what started out
with the usual teasing of Dally, together with some subjective
criticism about her claim to be a triathlete, I have listed a few
posts which will illustrate Donovan's single-mindedness and obvious
dislike of David resulting in his IOM nomination:

This all started out with Dally reporting back with the results
<[email hidden]>

Charles responded:
<[email hidden]>

Dally responded:
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

Donovan first started personalising:
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

Resulting in a formal proposal thus:
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the IOM award is to be re-introduced then it must be seen that the
IOM Adjudicator is not biased one way or the other by the popularity
or otherwise of the participating parties.

Why do I get the feeling that you are trying to manipulate me?

Art, as if I would?!! ;o)

We've known each other well enough, and this was just a pissing
contest between David and Donovan, with loyalties divided resulting in
a few prompts from the supporters or otherwise muddying the water.

This was in no way a typical IOM scenario where Jim (for example) says
something crass and everyone votes him IOM. David made some very valid
points against a well-practiced opponent.

This was in many ways a very interesting debate, which threw up many
challenging situations and questions. Donovan with his usual
nit-picking enthusiasm set too with a will to get the better of David.

David in his own inimitable style refused to take it too seriously and
made fun of Donovan for his seriousness. However, David gave a good
account of himself and received support for his stance from a number
of other members including John Hanson, Joe Humble and myself et al.

Dally was too involved to be a credible witness and Lee's intense
dislike of David is well chronicled. There was sympathy for Dally
which unfortunately looked to support Donovan's case, but this was not
the case. The rest who made comments were just along for the ride and
didn't really care one way or the other.

This cannot be a genuine IOM nomination and I move that it be struck
out, in which case I will withdraw my nomination for Donovan and we
can all move on.

HAGW!!

TFIF!

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:36:49 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:14:35 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:11:23 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>Charles wrote:
>>
>>> I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.
>>
>>I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?
>
> If a fat-arsed trollop who is the subject and cause of the dispute is
> able to spitefully second a nomination, then it is only proper that a
> supporting "symbiote" of the nominee is allowed to exercise his quite
> proper privilege vote of veto!!
>
> MFW despite all it's faults is a democracy and Art is well versed in
> the rules of conduct for the IOM award!

Having researched Bill Robert's original comments when he instituted the
ability to veto (below), I am going to rule that your veto, as made above,
does not meet the requirements and is disallowed. I'm also ruling that,
since Donovan provided reasons for the nomination, the nomination will
stand even though Donovan is/was a participant in the discussion.

Art

From "IOM Nominations/seconds: rule addition" by Bill Roberts on March
5, 1998:

"Since there can be a problem with bogus nominations (although most of
our candidates this month were QUITE deserving) and yet I don't want
to be in the position of ruling on whether nominations are good or not,
here is a new solution which will be in effect now:

"If anyone believes that a nomination is bogus -- does not meet the
rules for IOM -- he or she can post a veto to the nomination, or to
the second. (Candidates may not post vetos.)

"Vetos can be overruled by nomination and/or second by persons other than
the original two. If and only if a new nomination and second is made,
then it will stand and that candidate will be on the ballot."

"I hope this will prove a fair way of avoiding having people on the
ballot who shouldn't be there. For example, it just isn't right that
a person who posted a question (even an unknowing one) should get
on the ballot, or be nominated at all, simply for asking a question
on something he didn't understand. That shouldn't happen.

Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply because
they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and factually, and
the people they argued with counterattack by nominating them for IOM,
thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such arguments, it really would
be higher class to let observers make the nomination, because it is all
too easy to be biased oneself when immersed in an argument."

Then I re-submit a veto on the grounds of:

"Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply
because they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and
factually, and the people they argued with counterattack by nominating
them for IOM, thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such
arguments, it really would be higher class to let observers make the
nomination, because it is all too easy to be biased oneself when
immersed in an argument."

Uh - reread the last sentence I wrote. Since Donovan listed reasons for
the nomination, I won't accept the above as a reason to veto.

Quoted message said:

Donovan quite clearly made a mountain out of a mole-hill and when he
was clearly having difficulty with David the Oz's tenacity and factual
presentation, which was supported by other creditable contributors, he
resorted to an IOM nomination, which was spurious and ill-willed.

Now that has potential. Care to amplify?

To illustrate Donovan's determination to exaggerate what started out
with the usual teasing of Dally, together with some subjective
criticism about her claim to be a triathlete, I have listed a few
posts which will illustrate Donovan's single-mindedness and obvious
dislike of David resulting in his IOM nomination:

This all started out with Dally reporting back with the results
<[email hidden]>

Charles responded:
<[email hidden]>

Dally responded:
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

Donovan first started personalising:
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

Resulting in a formal proposal thus:
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the IOM award is to be re-introduced then it must be seen that the
IOM Adjudicator is not biased one way or the other by the popularity
or otherwise of the participating parties.

Why do I get the feeling that you are trying to manipulate me?

Art, as if I would?!! ;o)

We've known each other well enough, and this was just a pissing
contest between David and Donovan, with loyalties divided resulting in
a few prompts from the supporters or otherwise muddying the water.

This was in no way a typical IOM scenario where Jim (for example) says
something crass and everyone votes him IOM. David made some very valid
points against a well-practiced opponent.

This was in many ways a very interesting debate, which threw up many
challenging situations and questions. Donovan with his usual
nit-picking enthusiasm set too with a will to get the better of David.

David in his own inimitable style refused to take it too seriously and
made fun of Donovan for his seriousness. However, David gave a good
account of himself and received support for his stance from a number
of other members including John Hanson, Joe Humble and myself et al.

Dally was too involved to be a credible witness and Lee's intense
dislike of David is well chronicled. There was sympathy for Dally
which unfortunately looked to support Donovan's case, but this was not
the case. The rest who made comments were just along for the ride and
didn't really care one way or the other.

This cannot be a genuine IOM nomination and I move that it be struck
out, in which case I will withdraw my nomination for Donovan and we
can all move on.

HAGW!!

TFIF!

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:36:49 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:14:35 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>
>"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:11:23 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.
>>>
>>>I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?
>>
>> If a fat-arsed trollop who is the subject and cause of the dispute is
>> able to spitefully second a nomination, then it is only proper that a
>> supporting "symbiote" of the nominee is allowed to exercise his quite
>> proper privilege vote of veto!!
>>
>> MFW despite all it's faults is a democracy and Art is well versed in
>> the rules of conduct for the IOM award!
>
>Having researched Bill Robert's original comments when he instituted

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>ability to veto (below), I am going to rule that your veto, as made

above,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>does not meet the requirements and is disallowed. I'm also ruling

that,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>since Donovan provided reasons for the nomination, the nomination will
>stand even though Donovan is/was a participant in the discussion.
>
>Art
>
>
>From "IOM Nominations/seconds: rule addition" by Bill Roberts on March
>5, 1998:
>
>"Since there can be a problem with bogus nominations (although most of
>our candidates this month were QUITE deserving) and yet I don't want
>to be in the position of ruling on whether nominations are good or not,
>here is a new solution which will be in effect now:
>
>"If anyone believes that a nomination is bogus -- does not meet the
>rules for IOM -- he or she can post a veto to the nomination, or to
>the second. (Candidates may not post vetos.)
>
>"Vetos can be overruled by nomination and/or second by persons other

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>the original two. If and only if a new nomination and second is made,
>then it will stand and that candidate will be on the ballot."
>
>"I hope this will prove a fair way of avoiding having people on the
>ballot who shouldn't be there. For example, it just isn't right that
>a person who posted a question (even an unknowing one) should get
>on the ballot, or be nominated at all, simply for asking a question
>on something he didn't understand. That shouldn't happen.
>
>Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply because
>they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and factually, and
>the people they argued with counterattack by nominating them for IOM,
>thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such arguments, it really

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>be higher class to let observers make the nomination, because it is all
>too easy to be biased oneself when immersed in an argument."

Then I re-submit a veto on the grounds of:

"Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply
because they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and
factually, and the people they argued with counterattack by nominating
them for IOM, thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such
arguments, it really would be higher class to let observers make the
nomination, because it is all too easy to be biased oneself when
immersed in an argument."

Uh - reread the last sentence I wrote. Since Donovan listed reasons for
the nomination, I won't accept the above as a reason to veto.

Quoted message said:

Donovan quite clearly made a mountain out of a mole-hill and when he
was clearly having difficulty with David the Oz's tenacity and factual
presentation, which was supported by other creditable contributors, he
resorted to an IOM nomination, which was spurious and ill-willed.

Now that has potential. Care to amplify?

To illustrate Donovan's determination to exaggerate what started out
with the usual teasing of Dally, together with some subjective
criticism about her claim to be a triathlete, I have listed a few
posts which will illustrate Donovan's single-mindedness and obvious
dislike of David resulting in his IOM nomination:

This all started out with Dally reporting back with the results
<[email hidden]>

Charles responded:
<[email hidden]>

Dally responded:
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

Donovan first started personalising:
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

Resulting in a formal proposal thus:
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the IOM award is to be re-introduced then it must be seen that the
IOM Adjudicator is not biased one way or the other by the popularity
or otherwise of the participating parties.

Why do I get the feeling that you are trying to manipulate me?

Art, as if I would?!! ;o)

We've known each other well enough, and this was just a pissing
contest between David and Donovan, with loyalties divided resulting in
a few prompts from the supporters or otherwise muddying the water.

This was in no way a typical IOM scenario where Jim (for example) says
something crass and everyone votes him IOM. David made some very valid
points against a well-practiced opponent.

This was in many ways a very interesting debate, which threw up many
challenging situations and questions. Donovan with his usual
nit-picking enthusiasm set too with a will to get the better of David.

David in his own inimitable style refused to take it too seriously and
made fun of Donovan for his seriousness. However, David gave a good
account of himself and received support for his stance from a number
of other members including John Hanson, Joe Humble and myself et al.

Dally was too involved to be a credible witness and Lee's intense
dislike of David is well chronicled. There was sympathy for Dally
which unfortunately looked to support Donovan's case, but this was not
the case. The rest who made comments were just along for the ride and
didn't really care one way or the other.

This cannot be a genuine IOM nomination and I move that it be struck
out, in which case I will withdraw my nomination for Donovan and we
can all move on.

HAGW!!

TFIF!

Dear Art,
My learned counsel has prepared a very persuasive case for having this
nomination struck out. You would know that it is preposterous to suggest
that my stance in this matter has been idiotic considering that the outcome
in this debate is in the balance and many thinking people would consider
that I would be the outright winner. Furthermore, in fairness - I have been
more of an idiot here heaps and heaps of times!

Kind regards

David the Oz

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

David said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:36:49 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:14:35 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:11:23 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Charles wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.
>>>>
>>>>I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?
>>>
>>> If a fat-arsed trollop who is the subject and cause of the dispute is
>>> able to spitefully second a nomination, then it is only proper that a
>>> supporting "symbiote" of the nominee is allowed to exercise his quite
>>> proper privilege vote of veto!!
>>>
>>> MFW despite all it's faults is a democracy and Art is well versed in
>>> the rules of conduct for the IOM award!
>>
>>Having researched Bill Robert's original comments when he instituted

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>ability to veto (below), I am going to rule that your veto, as made

above,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>does not meet the requirements and is disallowed. I'm also ruling

that,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>since Donovan provided reasons for the nomination, the nomination will
>>stand even though Donovan is/was a participant in the discussion.
>>
>>Art
>>
>>
>>From "IOM Nominations/seconds: rule addition" by Bill Roberts on March
>>5, 1998:
>>
>>"Since there can be a problem with bogus nominations (although most of
>>our candidates this month were QUITE deserving) and yet I don't want
>>to be in the position of ruling on whether nominations are good or not,
>>here is a new solution which will be in effect now:
>>
>>"If anyone believes that a nomination is bogus -- does not meet the
>>rules for IOM -- he or she can post a veto to the nomination, or to
>>the second. (Candidates may not post vetos.)
>>
>>"Vetos can be overruled by nomination and/or second by persons other

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>the original two. If and only if a new nomination and second is made,
>>then it will stand and that candidate will be on the ballot."
>>
>>"I hope this will prove a fair way of avoiding having people on the
>>ballot who shouldn't be there. For example, it just isn't right that
>>a person who posted a question (even an unknowing one) should get
>>on the ballot, or be nominated at all, simply for asking a question
>>on something he didn't understand. That shouldn't happen.
>>
>>Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply because
>>they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and factually, and
>>the people they argued with counterattack by nominating them for IOM,
>>thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such arguments, it really

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>be higher class to let observers make the nomination, because it is all
>>too easy to be biased oneself when immersed in an argument."
>
> Then I re-submit a veto on the grounds of:
>
> "Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply
> because they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and
> factually, and the people they argued with counterattack by nominating
> them for IOM, thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such
> arguments, it really would be higher class to let observers make the
> nomination, because it is all too easy to be biased oneself when
> immersed in an argument."
>

Uh - reread the last sentence I wrote. Since Donovan listed reasons for
the nomination, I won't accept the above as a reason to veto.

> Donovan quite clearly made a mountain out of a mole-hill and when he
> was clearly having difficulty with David the Oz's tenacity and factual
> presentation, which was supported by other creditable contributors, he
> resorted to an IOM nomination, which was spurious and ill-willed.

Now that has potential. Care to amplify?

To illustrate Donovan's determination to exaggerate what started out
with the usual teasing of Dally, together with some subjective
criticism about her claim to be a triathlete, I have listed a few
posts which will illustrate Donovan's single-mindedness and obvious
dislike of David resulting in his IOM nomination:

This all started out with Dally reporting back with the results
<[email hidden]>

Charles responded:
<[email hidden]>

Dally responded:
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

Donovan first started personalising:
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

Resulting in a formal proposal thus:
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>
> If the IOM award is to be re-introduced then it must be seen that the
> IOM Adjudicator is not biased one way or the other by the popularity
> or otherwise of the participating parties.
>

Why do I get the feeling that you are trying to manipulate me?

Art, as if I would?!! ;o)

We've known each other well enough, and this was just a pissing
contest between David and Donovan, with loyalties divided resulting in
a few prompts from the supporters or otherwise muddying the water.

This was in no way a typical IOM scenario where Jim (for example) says
something crass and everyone votes him IOM. David made some very valid
points against a well-practiced opponent.

This was in many ways a very interesting debate, which threw up many
challenging situations and questions. Donovan with his usual
nit-picking enthusiasm set too with a will to get the better of David.

David in his own inimitable style refused to take it too seriously and
made fun of Donovan for his seriousness. However, David gave a good
account of himself and received support for his stance from a number
of other members including John Hanson, Joe Humble and myself et al.

Dally was too involved to be a credible witness and Lee's intense
dislike of David is well chronicled. There was sympathy for Dally
which unfortunately looked to support Donovan's case, but this was not
the case. The rest who made comments were just along for the ride and
didn't really care one way or the other.

This cannot be a genuine IOM nomination and I move that it be struck
out, in which case I will withdraw my nomination for Donovan and we
can all move on.

HAGW!!

TFIF!

Dear Art,
My learned counsel has prepared a very persuasive case for having this
nomination struck out. You would know that it is preposterous to suggest
that my stance in this matter has been idiotic considering that the outcome
in this debate is in the balance and many thinking people would consider
that I would be the outright winner. Furthermore, in fairness - I have been
more of an idiot here heaps and heaps of times!

In all seriousness.

You lost the argument. You admitted it yourself. None the less, David
displayed no idiocy. It is inappropraite to call for an IOM nomination
for him, IMO.

Obstinate, argumentive [censored] of the month. Of course. Would have won
hands down.

OABOM - hell yeah. I'd write it up myself. He was wrong, he knew he was
wrong, but he kept on arguing out of pure enjoyment of the sport. Once
again, IMO.

I never knew an Aussie yet who wouldn't pick an argument at the drop of
a hat - and often drop the hat themselves, so to speak. Of course I
could also say the same about my entire family, so I'm not saying that
in a negative way. Lots of Hobmans in Oz, too.

Let's not belittle the coveted IOM award in such a manner. I call on
Donovan to withdraw his own nomination. It was well written, it was
funny, but there is a difference between obstinate and argumentove and
idiocy. Sure, it can be a fine line, but not in this case.

--
Keith

In article <[email hidden]>,

David said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:36:49 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:14:35 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:11:23 -0400, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Charles wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.
>>>>
>>>>I need a ruling on this: can a nominee's symbiote exercise the veto?
>>>
>>> If a fat-arsed trollop who is the subject and cause of the dispute is
>>> able to spitefully second a nomination, then it is only proper that a
>>> supporting "symbiote" of the nominee is allowed to exercise his quite
>>> proper privilege vote of veto!!
>>>
>>> MFW despite all it's faults is a democracy and Art is well versed in
>>> the rules of conduct for the IOM award!
>>
>>Having researched Bill Robert's original comments when he instituted

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>ability to veto (below), I am going to rule that your veto, as made

above,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>does not meet the requirements and is disallowed. I'm also ruling

that,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>since Donovan provided reasons for the nomination, the nomination will
>>stand even though Donovan is/was a participant in the discussion.
>>
>>Art
>>
>>
>>From "IOM Nominations/seconds: rule addition" by Bill Roberts on March
>>5, 1998:
>>
>>"Since there can be a problem with bogus nominations (although most of
>>our candidates this month were QUITE deserving) and yet I don't want
>>to be in the position of ruling on whether nominations are good or not,
>>here is a new solution which will be in effect now:
>>
>>"If anyone believes that a nomination is bogus -- does not meet the
>>rules for IOM -- he or she can post a veto to the nomination, or to
>>the second. (Candidates may not post vetos.)
>>
>>"Vetos can be overruled by nomination and/or second by persons other

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>the original two. If and only if a new nomination and second is made,
>>then it will stand and that candidate will be on the ballot."
>>
>>"I hope this will prove a fair way of avoiding having people on the
>>ballot who shouldn't be there. For example, it just isn't right that
>>a person who posted a question (even an unknowing one) should get
>>on the ballot, or be nominated at all, simply for asking a question
>>on something he didn't understand. That shouldn't happen.
>>
>>Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply because
>>they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and factually, and
>>the people they argued with counterattack by nominating them for IOM,
>>thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such arguments, it really

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>be higher class to let observers make the nomination, because it is all
>>too easy to be biased oneself when immersed in an argument."
>
> Then I re-submit a veto on the grounds of:
>
> "Also, it shouldn't happen that people get on the ballot simply
> because they were in an argument, perhaps arguing reasonably and
> factually, and the people they argued with counterattack by nominating
> them for IOM, thinking that very clever (it isn't.) In such
> arguments, it really would be higher class to let observers make the
> nomination, because it is all too easy to be biased oneself when
> immersed in an argument."
>

Uh - reread the last sentence I wrote. Since Donovan listed reasons for
the nomination, I won't accept the above as a reason to veto.

> Donovan quite clearly made a mountain out of a mole-hill and when he
> was clearly having difficulty with David the Oz's tenacity and factual
> presentation, which was supported by other creditable contributors, he
> resorted to an IOM nomination, which was spurious and ill-willed.

Now that has potential. Care to amplify?

To illustrate Donovan's determination to exaggerate what started out
with the usual teasing of Dally, together with some subjective
criticism about her claim to be a triathlete, I have listed a few
posts which will illustrate Donovan's single-mindedness and obvious
dislike of David resulting in his IOM nomination:

This all started out with Dally reporting back with the results
<[email hidden]>

Charles responded:
<[email hidden]>

Dally responded:
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

Donovan first started personalising:
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

Resulting in a formal proposal thus:
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>
> If the IOM award is to be re-introduced then it must be seen that the
> IOM Adjudicator is not biased one way or the other by the popularity
> or otherwise of the participating parties.
>

Why do I get the feeling that you are trying to manipulate me?

Art, as if I would?!! ;o)

We've known each other well enough, and this was just a pissing
contest between David and Donovan, with loyalties divided resulting in
a few prompts from the supporters or otherwise muddying the water.

This was in no way a typical IOM scenario where Jim (for example) says
something crass and everyone votes him IOM. David made some very valid
points against a well-practiced opponent.

This was in many ways a very interesting debate, which threw up many
challenging situations and questions. Donovan with his usual
nit-picking enthusiasm set too with a will to get the better of David.

David in his own inimitable style refused to take it too seriously and
made fun of Donovan for his seriousness. However, David gave a good
account of himself and received support for his stance from a number
of other members including John Hanson, Joe Humble and myself et al.

Dally was too involved to be a credible witness and Lee's intense
dislike of David is well chronicled. There was sympathy for Dally
which unfortunately looked to support Donovan's case, but this was not
the case. The rest who made comments were just along for the ride and
didn't really care one way or the other.

This cannot be a genuine IOM nomination and I move that it be struck
out, in which case I will withdraw my nomination for Donovan and we
can all move on.

HAGW!!

TFIF!

Dear Art,
My learned counsel has prepared a very persuasive case for having this
nomination struck out. You would know that it is preposterous to suggest
that my stance in this matter has been idiotic considering that the outcome
in this debate is in the balance and many thinking people would consider
that I would be the outright winner. Furthermore, in fairness - I have been
more of an idiot here heaps and heaps of times!

In all seriousness.

You lost the argument. You admitted it yourself. None the less, David
displayed no idiocy. It is inappropraite to call for an IOM nomination
for him, IMO.

Obstinate, argumentive [censored] of the month. Of course. Would have won
hands down.

OABOM - hell yeah. I'd write it up myself. He was wrong, he knew he was
wrong, but he kept on arguing out of pure enjoyment of the sport. Once
again, IMO.

I never knew an Aussie yet who wouldn't pick an argument at the drop of
a hat - and often drop the hat themselves, so to speak. Of course I
could also say the same about my entire family, so I'm not saying that
in a negative way. Lots of Hobmans in Oz, too.

Let's not belittle the coveted IOM award in such a manner. I call on
Donovan to withdraw his own nomination. It was well written, it was
funny, but there is a difference between obstinate and argumentove and
idiocy. Sure, it can be a fine line, but not in this case.

--
Keith