1922Re: [Ayreton] Re:Letter of Intent
- Jan 30, 2008What remedy do you suggest? Any re-vote will have the same problems
as the last one, with regard to people not voting. The voting was
well-announced and proxies were available, so the only reason someone
could not have made their vote recorded would be if they weren't
paying attention at all until it was too late. Any re-vote that had a
fixed deadline could not do better. What assurance do we have that
enough people to satisfy you would turn up at the Towne Hall you
suggested in your first post, when they didn't vote or send proxies to
the voting that already took place?
If instead you're asking for the polls to remain open until everyone's
said "yea" or "nay," that's effectively asking for us to never do
anything about it.
On Jan 30, 2008 9:03 AM, John Adams <auldefarte@...> wrote:
> Good morning.
> I hope your 'anticipation' doesn't include me. I have
> no intention of - attacking - anyone.
> I do not believe that I stated those who abstained
> were against the transition.
> While your point is well taken, as you pointed out,
> failing to vote in favor of the topic at hand is still
> failing to vote against it as well. It is then not
> incorrect to characterize their silence as 'not
> clearly in favor of' the subject at hand. Failing to
> vote FOR or AGAINST it is the same as failing to make
> clear your preference. Therefore, it is not a
> mischaracterization. As you comment, perhaps those
> individuals have simply not been convinced one way or
> another, but then they have not been moved to clearly
> choose favorably. That was the only point to be made
> by the numbers I presented.
> Understand, this is not a spin of, 'Those who are not
> for us, must be against us'. It is simply indicating
> that a significant portion of this community are
> either against supporting this transition or do not
> clearly believe that this transition is something they
> can support. That means (to me) that its advocates,
> including the officers involved, appear to be more
> interested in assuring the change than being concerned
> about the potential for a serious 'schizm' in this
> locality (as opposed to a minor one if the numbers
> were less significant) that could be the by product of
> this process. Was all.
> -- Grimkirk
> --- Lanina Ysalgue' <yslagy@...> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > (speaking as an individual, NOT senechal)
> > I wish to address Grimkirk's concerns (with the
> > realization I may end up getting attacked).
> > In terms of being not clearly in favor, when has
> > there
> > ever been that in any voting? How many people choose
> > to abstain from our own governmental voting?
> > (especially when it's your own local town hall
> > meetings that will affect the zonings, businesses,
> > and
> > residencies in your own town?) This situation is no
> > different. I'm not saying that the opinions of those
> > that abstained from voting have no opinion or that
> > their opinion was not listened to, but at the point
> > of
> > putting the issue to a vote, they made the choice to
> > NOT vote. It does not mean they agree, IT DOES NOT
> > MEAN THEY DISAGREE EITHER, so do not take their
> > silence as being against the issue. You have your
> > own opinions, others have theirs, and they shall
> > remain seperate.
> > As for a request to have a non-event related town
> > hall
> > meeting, I (personally: not speaking for others)am
> > willing to entertain the notion. If any suggestions
> > can be made on a time, date & place where ALL
> > AYRETON
> > IS ABLE TO ATTEND AND PAYMENT FOR SPACE IS NOT
> > NEEDED
> > I will be there. With this people will need to
> > consider others work schedules, personal priorities
> > and activities as well as not conflicting with other
> > various activities that people will say have more
> > priority over this town hall meeting that has been
> > requested.
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
"Hard it is to lift a full cup without spilling."--Gorice XII
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>