Re: [RLC-Action] New poll for RLC-Action
I agree with your one- or two-color printing concept, and I think Westmiller's Elephant Torch looks good in gray tones, but I can't seem to find your "late" entry. What link do I need to use to get there?
Chuck Seberg wrote:Mine is the one labeled 'late", but I guess that's because I modified a logo that wasn't previously blessed by the NatComm. If you haven't seen it, check it out. I filled the blank space in Dave Briggman's logo with a blue "blanket" and white stars. My thought was that it would look fine with either 2 color or 4 color processes. Which is a consideration as you might also consider what a logo would look like when reduced to 1 color. Requiring 4 colors all the time might not be practical.Chuck----- Original Message -----From: DGHarrisonSent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:42 PMSubject: Re: [RLC-Action] New poll for RLC-ActionThe original call for a logo was for a graphic design without any words incorporated into it. I'm guessing that the idea was to get a logo that stood alone, and any words would be added as needed, depending upon the application (although that was never explained in so many words). Several designs were submitted with words, several without. In this regard, all designs should be considered for their merit without the words.
And, just to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment, what I don't quite find attractive about the Elephant Flag is that the single star in the middle of its forehead makes it look like a circus elephant, which might prompt critics of the RLC to make statements like, "There's that RLC circus elephant; there must be some RLC clowns around here somewhere." Even the "RLC" could be abused by someone turning the "C" into "Clowns." The star also looks like a bull's eye. Elephants are hard to bring down, but didn't the safari hunter aim right between the eyes to bring a big bull elephant to its knees?
I believe in "negative analysis." You can look at something and find a lot of things you like about it, and you can look at something to find what you don't like about it. If the negatives outweigh the positives, the decision is greatly simplified.
Tim Condon wrote:
Everyone, let me argue for the Elephant Flag logo. The reason I like it is that it has our entire name spelled out---Republican Liberty Caucus---AND it's got our web site of www.rlc.org on it. Plus it incorporates elements of the American flag and the GOP Elephant. An extra benefit, to my mind, is that the elephant looks like an enraged rat...but that just might only be me.
Tim Condon, Tampa, FL --- Come live with us in liberty: WWW.FREESTATEPROJECT.ORG
"When people are free to go about their own business, they put their ingenuity and creativity in the service of all. They search for ways to satisfy the needs, desires, and wants of others. The true utopia lies not in some state-sponsored tyranny, but in the free market of goods, ides, and services, whose operating principle is that success depends on satisfying others." ---from "Why Freedom?" by R.J. Rummel
Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the RLC-Action group: RLC members are invited to indicate their preferences for an official RLC logo. The entries may be found at: www.republicanliberty.org/news/rlc_logos.htm Results from the convention and all RLC membership eGroups will be reviewed by the Board for final determination. Indicate your preference: o Elephant Torch [Westmiller-Finalist] o Liberty Bell [Bernay-Finalist] o Lady Bell [Hancock-Finalist] o Bell Emblem [Reed-RunnerUp] o Elephant Flag [Oldroyd-RunnerUp] o Gadsen Flag [Holtorf] o Elephant Line [Briggman] o Eagle Emblem [Turner] o RLC Flag [McWilliams] o Liberty 'B' [Reed] o Eagle Flag [Westmiller] o Blanket Line [Seberg-Late] o None of the Above To vote, please visit the following web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/surveys?id=1934181 Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above. Thanks! ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> <font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h32t3ob/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705060175:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1123886664/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992 ">Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!</a>.</font> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: RLC-Actionfirstname.lastname@example.org <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Message>I don't really know anything about this group (though I've heard of them before), so it would probably be a good idea to do a little background research on them before relying on their information.I can vouch for Citizens Against Government Waste (I've been a member for years), and their "Pig Book" would be an excellent resource.
Jeff Palmer - jap@...
Quote of the Week: “It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak, and another to hear.” — Henry David Thoreau, 1849-----Original Message-----I just took a quick look on the web and ran across Citizens Against Government Waste (http://www.cagw.org/), a nonpartisan organization that tracks pork projects. They have a monthly e-newsletter and send out e-mail alerts (presumably on pork projects in the works). More importantly, they maintain a database of current and past pork legislation--the Pig Book. The 2005 Pig Book can be viewed at http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2005 .
From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J. Keith Harmon
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Blogging to Cut Government Spending? <SNIPPED>
I don't really know anything about this group (though I've heard of them before), so it would probably be a good idea to do a little background research on them before relying on their information. Still, the Pig Book and CAGW's other resources look like good places to start.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 9/16/2005