Re: [atlarge-discuss] It Must Be Right...

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 12:16 p.m. 30/05/2003, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>
> > This "election" is over.  NULL AND VOID.
> >
> > --Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> Demolition must be followed by construction. If you want to start 
> again on square one, WHO will have the authority to organize new 
> elections? 

Now you're starting to ask the right sort of questions.

I suggest we go with an outside party, one intimatey familiar with our 
politics but not personally involved in any of it.  Something like a 
Parliamentarian Speaker of the House.  I believe that Danny Younger has 
time to kill and he knows all about our internicine circumstances, if 
you will.  Yet, he's not a member and cannot aspire to any position in 
the election he might conceivably organize if we were to ask him.  Along 
with Danny, I would include Joanna Lane, David Farrar, and Rod Dixon as 
election scrutineers.  We could use a mailman list for the vote which 
only the P.O. and the scrutineers monitoring the email ballots will 
recieve.  Each can tabulate and then publish their results for public 
comparison.  That would be fair, in my estimation.

As or the candidates.  Each must be verified via either Paypal, or 
digital certificate before they can stand for office.  
> To answer that, it is best to look at the result of Jefsey's work and 
> then make up our mind about going along with the members that have 
> suggested giving the interim authority to the top five choices. 

No.  My answer is better and more likely to bring about a trusted state 
of Order.  If you choose to perpetuate Jefsey's farce things will only 
spiral, I promise you.

> Do you want to be among those, Sotiris? 

Not at the price of having such a swindle pulled off.  No thanks.

> Mistrust and walking away is justified when we see an actual hijack.  
> What we see is 3 volunteers who have assumed responsibility and 
> (wrongly) authority. 

Only responsible people can assume responsibility.  Listening to these 
three telling us about bank holidays,  Mother days, trips across the 
country back and forth, time constraints, and small town bible gospel 
meetings, this for me is not a good indication of responsibility towards 
something for which they seemingly volunteered.  No sirree, not a good 
indication at all.  
> Before you call for total demolition it is better to see first what 
> has been achieved with the work done and what can be salvaged. 

My proscription stands as I've stated above.  Nothing can be salvaged 
from this mess.  If you build on mud, the foundation cannot be trusted. 
You ought to know that.

Amiably,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

--
-----------

"The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.

> From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
nothing."
				     --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de