Re: IOM nomination

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Charles said:

I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.

Anticipated.

Motion to dismiss veto:

Regarding John Hudson's veto of the IOM nomination submitted by
Donovan Rebbechi, for the nominee, "David", on August 4, 2005:

I move that the veto be rejected. There are two separate claims I wish to
file, each of which is sufficient to dismiss the veto.

Claim 1: Hudson's veto is invalid, because he is opposed in principal to the
IOM competition.
Claim 2: Hudson is a troll, hence his veto should not be accepted.

Both of these claims, I believe, also disqualify Hudson from voting

Claim 1: on the IOM competition, Hudson has been on record several times.

Exhibit (a), Hudson initiats the "Idiot of the Month!" thread, criticising
the award.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/0c0339beb855e0f9

I submit that someone who has repeatedly criticised the validity of the IOM
competition, has an interest in sabotaging it, and hence is likely to veto
nominations, or vote, in bad faith.

On claim 2, threads like ``killfiling warning - don't "ignore" it'', the
previously cited ``idiot of the Month!'' thread, and most of Hudson's threads
(dramatically terminated with the obligatory exclamation mark) support the
notion that Hudson is a troll. I believe claim 2 to be stronger than claim 1,
in that there is support for it in the IOM charter. The charter demonstrates
a clear intent to prevent trolls from manipulating the vote by making them
eligible for the award. I submit that the framers of this document did not
intend trolls to manipulate the award by actually assuming veto power (or even
voting rights, for that matter)

Wriggle as much as you like Donovan but the rules are quite clear.

Your smearing of the opposition in support of what is a spurious
nomination, which would fail anyway without the aid of my veto, is
just another sour and spiteful attempt to even the score with David
the Oz, who has stood up and defended his "argument" under some
withering personal attacks from you.

Your ad hominem attacks on me in an attempt to disqualify me from my
quite proper participation in the activities of the Group, are
scurrilous and contemptible and do you no credit.

Fortunately, although Art has previously pointed out the fallibility
of the rules of this by now lapsed award, nevertheless they still
remain the rules.

I am fully satisfied concerning Art's honesty and integrity and I am
sure that his adjudication will be correct and proper as usual.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Charles said:

I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.

Anticipated.

Motion to dismiss veto:

Regarding John Hudson's veto of the IOM nomination submitted by
Donovan Rebbechi, for the nominee, "David", on August 4, 2005:

I move that the veto be rejected. There are two separate claims I wish to
file, each of which is sufficient to dismiss the veto.

Claim 1: Hudson's veto is invalid, because he is opposed in principal to the
IOM competition.
Claim 2: Hudson is a troll, hence his veto should not be accepted.

Both of these claims, I believe, also disqualify Hudson from voting

Claim 1: on the IOM competition, Hudson has been on record several times.

Exhibit (a), Hudson initiats the "Idiot of the Month!" thread, criticising
the award.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/0c0339beb855e0f9

I submit that someone who has repeatedly criticised the validity of the IOM
competition, has an interest in sabotaging it, and hence is likely to veto
nominations, or vote, in bad faith.

On claim 2, threads like ``killfiling warning - don't "ignore" it'', the
previously cited ``idiot of the Month!'' thread, and most of Hudson's threads
(dramatically terminated with the obligatory exclamation mark) support the
notion that Hudson is a troll. I believe claim 2 to be stronger than claim 1,
in that there is support for it in the IOM charter. The charter demonstrates
a clear intent to prevent trolls from manipulating the vote by making them
eligible for the award. I submit that the framers of this document did not
intend trolls to manipulate the award by actually assuming veto power (or even
voting rights, for that matter)

Wriggle as much as you like Donovan but the rules are quite clear.

Your smearing of the opposition in support of what is a spurious
nomination, which would fail anyway without the aid of my veto, is
just another sour and spiteful attempt to even the score with David
the Oz, who has stood up and defended his "argument" under some
withering personal attacks from you.

Your ad hominem attacks on me in an attempt to disqualify me from my
quite proper participation in the activities of the Group, are
scurrilous and contemptible and do you no credit.

Fortunately, although Art has previously pointed out the fallibility
of the rules of this by now lapsed award, nevertheless they still
remain the rules.

I am fully satisfied concerning Art's honesty and integrity and I am
sure that his adjudication will be correct and proper as usual.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Charles said:

I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.

Anticipated.

Motion to dismiss veto:

Regarding John Hudson's veto of the IOM nomination submitted by
Donovan Rebbechi, for the nominee, "David", on August 4, 2005:

I move that the veto be rejected. There are two separate claims I wish to
file, each of which is sufficient to dismiss the veto.

Claim 1: Hudson's veto is invalid, because he is opposed in principal to the
IOM competition.

Because it is used inappropriately by a majority of ill-willed against
a hapless individual, which is quite clearly bullying. The original
intention is that it should be *fun*!

Quoted message said:

Claim 2: Hudson is a troll, hence his veto should not be accepted.

That is only the view of those who have opposed Hudson and got no joy!

Quoted message said:

Both of these claims, I believe, also disqualify Hudson from voting

They don't!

Quoted message said:

Claim 1: on the IOM competition, Hudson has been on record several times.

As the champion of the oppressed!

Quoted message said:

Exhibit (a), Hudson initiats the "Idiot of the Month!" thread, criticising
the award.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/0c0339beb855e0f9

I see nothing there particularly heinous. Here is what it contains:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have on a number of occasions in the past suggested that this
nebulous award is clamoured for, and chaotically administered by, some
of the most deserving potential recipients.

And of course this little offering by our self-appointed Chairman of
Idiots, is of course in a different category but nevertheless a
classic of its kind.

Come on Donovan, if you're going to run this competition, let's do it
properly. Award it promptly each month to those most deserving, who
have contributed to MFW with genuinely "idiotic" content!

Let's not use the 'threat' of the award as a weapon for the *real*
idiots, to harass and bully genuine contributors who are perhaps
perceived by some as not particularly popular."
_________________________________________________

There is nothing there at odds with my predictable and consistent
efforts to confront the few bullies that would control this Group.

I rest my case Ladies and Gentlemen and bid you all Good Night! ;o)

Charles said:

Your ad hominem attacks on me in an attempt to disqualify me from my
quite proper participation in the activities of the Group, are
scurrilous and contemptible and do you no credit.

Isn't "ad hominem" when you call someone a trollop, not when you explain
your reasoning and back it up with citations? I think you might need to
look up the definition.

HTH.

Dally

"Dally" wrote

Quoted message said:

Charles said:

Your ad hominem attacks on me in an attempt to disqualify me from my
quite proper participation in the activities of the Group, are
scurrilous and contemptible and do you no credit.

Isn't "ad hominem" when you call someone a trollop, not when you explain
your reasoning and back it up with citations? I think you might need to
look up the definition.

What is the "proper participation" of the David-Chucky symbiote?

And these procedures are rooted in MFW tradition. Long before the trolling
team of david and chucky came along.

Does that upset you chucky? Tradition?? Is seems like you have some of
that on your side of the pond.

Just like an aristocratic brit to [censored] at us about our traditions.

Dally said:

Charles said:

Your ad hominem attacks on me in an attempt to disqualify me from my
quite proper participation in the activities of the Group, are
scurrilous and contemptible and do you no credit.

Isn't "ad hominem" when you call someone a trollop, not when you explain
your reasoning and back it up with citations?

Yes that would be a very good example Dally!!

Quoted message said:

I think you might need to look up the definition.

I think you know I don't. Most of what I say and do is correct and
truthful, if perhaps a tad blunt and hurtful at times, but then I do
get a fair amount of provocation.

Quite frankly my dear, if * I * was looking for someone at MFW to have
a 'fight' with, * I * wouldn't pick on *me* !! ;o)

I have said often to people "try being nice for a change"!!

Have a great weekend Dally in the bosom of that dear family of yours -
you know I will be enjoying mine!! ;o)

TFIF!

Lee Michaels said:

"Dally" wrote

Quoted message said:

Charles said:

Your ad hominem attacks on me in an attempt to disqualify me from my
quite proper participation in the activities of the Group, are
scurrilous and contemptible and do you no credit.

Isn't "ad hominem" when you call someone a trollop, not when you explain
your reasoning and back it up with citations? I think you might need to
look up the definition.

What is the "proper participation" of the David-Chucky symbiote?

It is the opposite of improper participation dopey!!

Quoted message said:

And these procedures are rooted in MFW tradition. Long before the trolling
team of david and chucky came along.

And "chucky" was performing solo long before idiot Michaels arrived on
the scene!! :o)

Quoted message said:

Does that upset you chucky?

Not in the slightest old man!!

Quoted message said:

Tradition??

If you knew my lineage you would know just how inappropriate that
silly suggestion is. A Yank telling an English gentleman about
"tradition"! <snigger>

Quoted message said:

Is seems like you have some of that on your side of the pond.

We invented it old darling and both sides of my family were a
well-established part of it before the Pilgrim Fathers gave birth to
the brave new world!!

Quoted message said:

Just like an aristocratic brit to [censored] at us about our traditions.

But whether you like it or not dopey, I am more of an "our" than you
are, and know more about MFW than you ever will, because I have a few
more grey cells than you do! But then so does a dead rat's sphincter.

Have a great weekend you silly old [censored] - you know I will!! ;o)

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

Quoted message said:

Lee Michaels said:

"Dally" wrote

Quoted message said:

Charles wrote:

> Your ad hominem attacks on me in an attempt to disqualify me from my
> quite proper participation in the activities of the Group, are
> scurrilous and contemptible and do you no credit.

Isn't "ad hominem" when you call someone a trollop, not when you

explain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your reasoning and back it up with citations? I think you might need

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

look up the definition.

What is the "proper participation" of the David-Chucky symbiote?

It is the opposite of improper participation dopey!!

Quoted message said:

And these procedures are rooted in MFW tradition. Long before the

trolling

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

team of david and chucky came along.

And "chucky" was performing solo long before idiot Michaels arrived on
the scene!! :o)

Quoted message said:

Does that upset you chucky?

Not in the slightest old man!!

Quoted message said:

Tradition??

If you knew my lineage you would know just how inappropriate that
silly suggestion is. A Yank telling an English gentleman about
"tradition"! <snigger>

Quoted message said:

Is seems like you have some of that on your side of the pond.

We invented it old darling and both sides of my family were a
well-established part of it before the Pilgrim Fathers gave birth to
the brave new world!!

Quoted message said:

Just like an aristocratic brit to [censored] at us about our traditions.

But whether you like it or not dopey, I am more of an "our" than you
are, and know more about MFW than you ever will, because I have a few
more grey cells than you do! But then so does a dead rat's sphincter.

Ha ha! Poor Lee - you have to admire him - he spends so much time on the
canvas and always seems to come up more. No wonder he is punch drunk

Quoted message said:

Have a great weekend you silly old [censored] - you know I will!! ;o)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Charles said:

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:57:44 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is the "proper participation" of the David-Chucky symbiote?

It is the opposite of improper participation dopey!!

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I object! Lee cannot be "dopey," as *I* am dopey!

--
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

"Richard "dopey [censored]" Hedd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Charles said:

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:57:44 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is the "proper participation" of the David-Chucky symbiote?

It is the opposite of improper participation dopey!!

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I object! Lee cannot be "dopey," as *I* am dopey!

[censored]!! That is a spuriouos argument imbedded in sophistry. Plus you are
an intellectual coward! Lee is dopey of course - that is a given. Maybe you
are less dopey but dopey nevertheless!