 | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Tom McDonald
| | | | (...) I voted as Todd indicated, where (a), (b) and (c) are each separate points. Perhaps the organization of questions could have been better. Just given either (a) or (b) above, I saw that just by answering yes on (b) would mean redundancy if my (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Todd Lehman
| | | | | (...) Ahh, but #2 and #5 do achieve different results! In #2, the hope is that if (a) doesn't pass, then perhaps (b) or (c) still might. In #3, if (a) doesn't pass, then that's it...all or nothing. * In #2, you're saying, "Yes, I would personally (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Tom McDonald
| | | | | | (...) Yeah, now that you splained it, it does! But it did need splaining then. You definitely were right to ask. And now, maybe I should recall my vote and alter it before it's too late. I *can* do that right? (...) But even if #3 is adopted, all it (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET —Steve Bliss
| | | | | (...) OK, then why was voting the "should XYZ happen" conditional upon the response to the "personally be happier if XYZ"? Steve (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | |
