PDA

View Full Version : ACF structure (was 2005/6 Presidency)



cincinnatus
10-09-2004, 11:13 PM
From the August 25 ACF newsletter (#279):

"Call for nominations for ACF President: The annual National Conference of the Australian Chess Federation (ACF), amongst other matters, will also in each alternate year, elect members of the ACF Executive. The next annual National Conference, which will be held on 06 January 2005 during the Australian Open, will thus need to elect members of the ACF Executive, including the ACF President. Nominations for other members of the ACF Executive, unlike the nominations for the ACF President, can be received up to the time the election to fill each office is due to be held.

The ACF Constitution specifies that candidates for ACF President shall be limited to persons who have "advised the Federation in writing of their willingness to serve as President, [with] such advice having been received by the Federation not less than ninety days before the date on which the Annual National Conference at which elections are due is scheduled to start". The ACF’s rules regarding the election of the ACF president may be viewed at the ACF web site www.auschess.org.au/constitution

Pursuant to the ACF Constitution, nominations are now called for the post of ACF President.

How to submit your nomination:

You can submit your nominations by email or hardcopy. The email address for all nominations is jeydh4@hotmail.com

Should you be unable or not wish to transmit via email, the address for all correspondence is:
Jey Hoole, ACF Secretary, PO Box 308, Strathfield NSW 2135.

The deadline for the submission of all nominations is 30 September 2004. All nominations will be formally acknowledged with 72 hours. If you have not received an acknowledgment of your application by this time, please contact me.

If you have any queries or seek further clarification please contact me on 0411 062160, or (02) 6264 2462.

- Jey Hoole, ACF Secretary"

Similar notices have been included in subsequent newsletters.

It's nice to see the ACF Secretary bringing this important business to everyone's attention and 30 October is a good, round, end-of-the-month date, but, by my calculations, "ninety days before the date(of) the Annual National Conference" is actually Friday, 8 October 2004.

How, then, are nominations received from 1 October to 8 October to be treated?

Garvinator
10-09-2004, 11:20 PM
It's nice to see the ACF Secretary bringing this important business to everyone's attention and 30 October is a good, round, end-of-the-month date, but, by my calculations, "ninety days before the date(of) the Annual National Conference" is actually Friday, 8 October 2004.

How, then, are nominations received from 1 October to 8 October to be treated?
should the date i have coloured be 30 september?

Bill Gletsos
10-09-2004, 11:25 PM
It's nice to see the ACF Secretary bringing this important business to everyone's attention and 30 October is a good, round, end-of-the-month date, but, by my calculations, "ninety days before the date(of) the Annual National Conference" is actually Friday, 8 October 2004.
You mean 30th September in the above.


How, then, are nominations received from 1 October to 8 October to be treated?
As valid as they meet the constitutional requirement.

I dont suppose you bothered to bring this to Jey's attention by actually contacting him?

Denis_Jessop
11-09-2004, 04:45 PM
You mean 30th September in the above.


As valid as they meet the constitutional requirement.

I dont suppose you bothered to bring this to Jey's attention by actually contacting him?

I should mention that this matter had come to my notice a few days before the first of these posts and I have already drawn the matter to Jey's attention. Also, I have pointed out that formal invitations to nominate for the other Executive positions should have been called for (that was implied in the original notice) even though they don't close until the date of the election. Moreover, if no nominations for President are received by the 90-day deadline, nominations for that position remain open until the date of the election. But, if one is received, that person becomes President-elect and, as I read the Constitution, if more than one is received by the 90-day deadline, an election is held at the Conference, confined to those nominees.

I understand that a revised advertisement will appear shortly.

Denis Jessop

ursogr8
24-10-2004, 09:54 PM
I should mention that this matter had come to my notice a few days before the first of these posts and I have already drawn the matter to Jey's attention. Also, I have pointed out that formal invitations to nominate for the other Executive positions should have been called for (that was implied in the original notice) even though they don't close until the date of the election. Moreover, if no nominations for President are received by the 90-day deadline, nominations for that position remain open until the date of the election. But, if one is received, that person becomes President-elect and, as I read the Constitution, if more than one is received by the 90-day deadline, an election is held at the Conference, confined to those nominees.

I understand that a revised advertisement will appear shortly.

Denis Jessop

Is any update available on these Executive positions? Like, who is standing for what position at this stage?

starter

Bill Gletsos
24-10-2004, 10:01 PM
Is any update available on these Executive positions? Like, who is standing for what position at this stage?

starter
There were no nominations prior to the October deadline.
Of course people can be nominated for them at the national conference.

Paul S
25-10-2004, 10:21 AM
There were no nominations prior to the October deadline.
Of course people can be nominated for them at the national conference.

I had thought that Denis Jessop and "he who cannot be mentioned" had nominated for the position of President.

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2004, 12:56 PM
I had thought that Denis Jessop and "he who cannot be mentioned" had nominated for the position of President.
I took it starter was referring to the other positions of Deputy President, Secretary, treasurer and the two Vice President positions.
After all it was abundantly clear that there had been two nominations for the Presidency hence his possibly referring to that made no sense.

Paul S
27-10-2004, 10:16 PM
I took it starter was referring to the other positions of Deputy President, Secretary, treasurer and the two Vice President positions.
After all it was abundantly clear that there had been two nominations for the Presidency hence his possibly referring to that made no sense.

I didn't see it that way (and I am sure most others would agree with me).

Then again, Bill is always right, aren't you Bill?! ;) :cool: :P :hmm:

Garvinator
27-10-2004, 10:17 PM
I didn't see it that way (and I am sure most others would agree with me).

Then again, Bill is always right, aren't you Bill?! ;) :cool: :P :hmm:
sorry Paul, but i had taken it to mean the other positions not including President :eek:

Paul S
27-10-2004, 10:25 PM
sorry Paul, but i had taken it to mean the other positions not including President :eek:

Looks like Bill has some company!

A minority of 2 that are "correct", while the rest of us are wrong! ;)

Bill Gletsos
27-10-2004, 11:30 PM
Looks like Bill has some company!
It looks like you have no company.


A minority of 2 that are "correct", while the rest of us are wrong! ;)
Why do you assume we are a minority of 2.
The majority probably understood exactly what starters question was getting at and therefore made no comment.

It is far more likely you are a minority of one.

After all the nominations for president were explicitly mentioned in the ACF bulletin immediately following the cut-off date.
Therefore unless starter was being a total moron (and he hasnt demonstrated that yet) then it made no sense for him to be asking about the presidentail nominations at all.

Brian_Jones
01-11-2004, 09:43 AM
Hey Bill - any statement from the ACF Presidential candidates about their policies and plans for the future? What information will we receive before we give you (and other NSWCA delegates) voting instructions at the NSWCA AGM?

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 11:46 AM
Hey Bill - any statement from the ACF Presidential candidates about their policies and plans for the future? What information will we receive before we give you (and other NSWCA delegates) voting instructions at the NSWCA AGM?
I have not seen any.
Of course the AGM attendees can give an indication of how they feel but they cannot give any voting instructions as any motions from the floor of the NSWCA AGM are not binding on Council as per the NSWCA Constitution.

Of course I suspect you already knew that. ;)

ursogr8
01-11-2004, 12:19 PM
I have not seen any.
Of course the AGM attendees can give an indication of how they feel but they cannot give any voting instructions as any motions from the floor of the NSWCA AGM are not binding on Council as per the NSWCA Constitution.

Of course I suspect you already knew that. ;)

I recall a discussion as to whether Amiel was franchised or disenfranchised on this issue.
Now looks like none of Welsher chess community are franchised, save for the Buller-goers?

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 12:47 PM
I recall a discussion as to whether Amiel was franchised or disenfranchised on this issue.
Now looks like none of Welsher chess community are franchised, save for the Buller-goers?
Based on your argument all voters at local, state and federal level are disenfranchised because they dont get a vote on each and every particular decision the government makes.

Just like with governments the NSWCA Council is elected to make decisions and although the opinion of the voters is listened it does not mean they will necessarily be followed.

And just like governments they can be voted out at a subsequent election if members feel they are not doing an overall good enough job.

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 12:50 PM
BTW talking of constitutions, I note that the CV one is not available on the CV web site nor for that matter is the BH constitution on the BH web site.

eclectic
01-11-2004, 01:07 PM
BTW talking of constitutions, I note that the CV one is not available on the CV web site nor for that matter is the BH constitution on the BH web site.

if the CV constitution were on the CV website the latter would probably NEVER load !!

;)

eclectic

ursogr8
01-11-2004, 01:14 PM
Based on your argument all voters at local, state and federal level are disenfranchised because they dont get a vote on each and every particular decision the government makes.

Just like with governments the NSWCA Council is elected to make decisions and although the opinion of the voters is listened it does not mean they will necessarily be followed.

And just like governments they can be voted out at a subsequent election if members feel they are not doing an overall good enough job.

But Bill, this is a black and white issue. Either vote for A or vote for the B.
Why wouldn't the delegates accept a direction from the NSWCA AGM and carry it to Mt B. as binding?

starter

ursogr8
01-11-2004, 01:16 PM
BTW talking of constitutions, I note that the CV one is not available on the CV web site nor for that matter is the BH constitution on the BH web site.

Your note is noted.

ursogr8
01-11-2004, 01:20 PM
if the CV constitution were on the CV website the latter would probably NEVER load !!

;)

eclectic

:clap: :lol:

You don't like Gazza's style?

starter

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 01:21 PM
But Bill, this is a black and white issue. Either vote for A or vote for the B.
Why wouldn't the delegates accept a direction from the NSWCA AGM and carry it to Mt B. as binding?

starter
Their opinion may well not represent the silent majority.

Ian Rout
01-11-2004, 01:34 PM
But Bill, this is a black and white issue. Either vote for A or vote for the B.
Why wouldn't the delegates accept a direction from the NSWCA AGM and carry it to Mt B. as binding?

starter
Considering that the objection is that people who are not delegates miss out on a direct vote it seems strange to advocate an alternative arrangement whereby people who do not attend the AGM miss out on a direct vote. Surely it would be more consistent to argue that there should be some sort of postal ballot of NSWCA members where everybody could participate?

ursogr8
01-11-2004, 02:18 PM
Considering that the objection is that people who are not delegates miss out on a direct vote it seems strange to advocate an alternative arrangement whereby people who do not attend the AGM miss out on a direct vote. Surely it would be more consistent to argue that there should be some sort of postal ballot of NSWCA members where everybody could participate?

Yes Ian, this sounds even better franchisement...postal votes. Or even better again, move completely to the CV system where delegates are true representatives of their Clubs and then the 'silent majority' problem is solved with efficiency. The Club delegates represent their Clubs and the vote at the AGM becomes binding.

starter

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 02:22 PM
Yes Ian, this sounds even better franchisement...postal votes. Or even better again, move completely to the CV system where delegates are true representatives of their Clubs and then the 'silent majority' problem is solved with efficiency. The Club delegates represent their Clubs and the vote at the AGM becomes binding.

starter
I wouldnt hold my breath for the NSWCA to switch to the CV Clubs model.

Garvinator
01-11-2004, 02:26 PM
any danger that you two might actually debate something that has even the slightest chance of being changed :uhoh:

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 02:31 PM
any danger that you two might actually debate something that has even the slightest chance of being changed :uhoh:
Unlikely. ;)

eclectic
01-11-2004, 02:36 PM
I wouldnt hold my breath for the NSWCA to switch to the CV Clubs model.

in victoria with the CV model you don't hold your breath, PERIOD, or else you DIE !!

:whistle:

eclectic

Garvinator
01-11-2004, 02:44 PM
Yes Ian, this sounds even better franchisement...postal votes. Or even better again, move completely to the CV system where delegates are true representatives of their Clubs and then the 'silent majority' problem is solved with efficiency. The Club delegates represent their Clubs and the vote at the AGM becomes binding.

starter
starter, if you want to debate and argue something that is worse than what you are discussing. How about debating the fact that nswca can all vote as a block and stop any acf constitutional change, even if every other state delegate is for it. :uhoh:

*runs away and hopes chesslover isnt around this time*

Brian_Jones
01-11-2004, 03:04 PM
starter, if you want to debate and argue something that is worse than what you are discussing. How about debating the fact that nswca can all vote as a block and stop any acf constitutional change, even if every other state delegate is for it. :uhoh:

And even if the majority of NSWCA members are for it (at an AGM or otherwise?).

Garvinator
01-11-2004, 03:09 PM
And even if the majority of NSWCA members are for it (at an AGM or otherwise?).
more info required please, not sure if you agree or disagree with the current situation?

ursogr8
01-11-2004, 03:10 PM
starter, if you want to debate and argue something that is worse than what you are discussing. How about debating the fact that nswca can all vote as a block and stop any acf constitutional change, even if every other state delegate is for it. :uhoh:

*runs away and hopes chesslover isnt around this time*

g''agg''y

The reason this THREAD is so sterile is that the real issue to be debated is verbotten because you guys disgraced yourselves last time the Unmentionable One was mentioned.

How the mods can allow a thread with this title, and not argue to lift the gag, defies rationality.

Finally, I thought the Welshers were on solid ground voting against the 'disenfranchisement proposal'. I know I voted against it too.

starter

ursogr8
01-11-2004, 03:12 PM
any danger that you two might actually debate something that has even the slightest chance of being changed :uhoh:

I know I am just idling; so I don't expect to go past anything. :uhoh:

Garvinator
01-11-2004, 03:17 PM
Finally, I thought the Welshers were on solid ground voting against the 'disenfranchisement proposal'. I know I voted against it too.

starter
'disenfranchisement proposal'- more info required again. I must have a computer error, cause this the second time in 30 mins i have had to type that :whistle:

Brian_Jones
01-11-2004, 03:20 PM
Now there is a way to spend the NSWCA Inc. reserves - introduce postal ballots of members!

But maybe it is justified once a year - send out the ballot papers with the AGM invite papers. Maybe the NSWCA newsletter could be posted out at the same time!? :lol:

eclectic
01-11-2004, 03:24 PM
g''agg''y

The reason this THREAD is so sterile is that the real issue to be debated is verbotten because you guys disgraced yourselves last time the Unmentionable One was mentioned.

How the mods can allow a thread with this title, and not argue to lift the gag, defies rationality.

starter

starter,

i doubt very much that either the unmentionableone or the notunmentionableone would be seriously using this forum to canvas support for their presidential aspirations

eclectic

ps

perhaps the equation should read ...

!lawsuitthreat ---> !forumgag

any correspondence received re a formal withdrawal?
jeo would know that :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 05:49 PM
And even if the majority of NSWCA members are for it (at an AGM or otherwise?).
Of course the NSWCA Council did discuss the acf commission at the relevant AGM and the majority of members present were not for it.

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 05:52 PM
'disenfranchisement proposal'- more info required again. I must have a computer error, cause this the second time in 30 mins i have had to type that :whistle:
You must really be having comprehension problems.
Starter is saying that he believes the acf commission plan disenfranchised various parties.
Of course dont take this comment as an excuse to start on the acf commission. Its a waste of time.

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 05:56 PM
g''agg''y

The reason this THREAD is so sterile is that the real issue to be debated is verbotten because you guys disgraced yourselves last time the Unmentionable One was mentioned.
Actually the only one disgracing themselves was you.
If you had not tried defending marketing puff so much that thread would have died out long before it was forcibly axed.


How the mods can allow a thread with this title, and not argue to lift the gag, defies rationality.
Of course they can because we are not discussing the candidates.


Finally, I thought the Welshers were on solid ground voting against the 'disenfranchisement proposal'. I know I voted against it too.
Which no doubt explains why the CV vote was split (3-2 I believe in favour).

Garvinator
01-11-2004, 05:58 PM
You must really be having comprehension problems.
Starter is saying that he believes the acf commission plan disenfranchised various parties.
Of course dont take this comment as an excuse to start on the acf commission. Its a waste of time.
wouldnt be the first time someone on here has kept bleating on about a topic that is a waste of time :P :lol:

My issue is with the fact that nswca can block any constitutional change, even if every other state delegate votes for the constitutional change. I am right that this is the current situation?

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 05:59 PM
wouldnt be the first time someone on here has kept bleating on about a topic that is a waste of time :P :lol:

My issue is with the fact that nswca can block any constitutional change, even if every other state delegate votes for the constitutional change. I am right that this is the current situation?
Yes it is.
Of course you knew that already, so stop wasting time.
Or are you just trying to infate your post count.

arosar
01-11-2004, 06:02 PM
My issue is with the fact that nswca can block any constitutional change, even if every other state delegate votes for the constitutional change.

What's your issue with it?

We're a big state with lotsa more players - so what's the problem?

AR

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 06:07 PM
What's your issue with it?

We're a big state with lotsa more players - so what's the problem?

AR
We also pay the biggest amount in ACF fees.

george
01-11-2004, 06:57 PM
NSW having the numbers re constitutional change basically means if you come up with an idea run it past the powers that be in NSW. Give it about six months stir ocassionaly add some seasoning and see what it ends up like then throw it to the rest and if edible you have constitutional change.

Something along those lines got the last changes 2 vice-presidents and position of immediate past president. The reasons for these was to encourage a greater executive and hopefully a large pool of administrative talent in various stages of evolution.

These ideas were fleshed out and presented by NSWCA delegates at last years Conference. Wherever the players are they should have a voice and if there are more chessplayers in NSW than elsewhere in Oz good luck to them.

George

Garvinator
01-11-2004, 07:03 PM
NSW having the numbers re constitutional change basically means if you come up with an idea run it past the powers that be in NSW. Give it about six months stir ocassionaly add some seasoning and see what it ends up like then throw it to the rest and if edible you have constitutional change.

Something along those lines got the last changes 2 vice-presidents and position of immediate past president. The reasons for these was to encourage a greater executive and hopefully a large pool of administrative talent in various stages of evolution.

These ideas were fleshed out and presented by NSWCA delegates at last years Conference. Wherever the players are they should have a voice and if there are more chessplayers in NSW than elsewhere in Oz good luck to them.

George

It seems that my point is being missed, so ill spell it out for everyone- no one state should have enough delegates to be able to block any constitutional change on their own.

eclectic
01-11-2004, 07:08 PM
It seems that my point is being missed, so ill spell it out for everyone- no one state should have enough delegates to be able to block any constitutional change on their own.

if their delegate numbers are proportional to the membership that they represent then all power to them branch stacking notwithstanding

eclectic

Garvinator
01-11-2004, 07:11 PM
if their delegate numbers are proportional to the membership that they represent then all power to them branch stacking notwithstanding

eclectic
delegate numbers are not proportional to membership, it is proportional to state population numbers.

eclectic
01-11-2004, 07:15 PM
delegate numbers are not proportional to membership, it is proportional to state population numbers.

perhaps it ought to be then ?

so i take it the act and nt are not represented

;)

eclectic

ursogr8
01-11-2004, 07:17 PM
We also pay the biggest amount in ACF fees.

gg''

I would have confidence in the block voting of the Welshers, if they came to a agreed position, on the Presidency; and even the Commission.

I am not on your side in this one.

starter

Garvinator
01-11-2004, 07:18 PM
perhaps it ought to be then ?

so i take it the act and nt are not represented

;)

eclectic
:lol: :lol: very good on that one :P basing it on state/territory membership numbers is a little bit difficult because there is no set of membership figures in cv, as far as i know.

Garvinator
01-11-2004, 07:20 PM
gg''

I would have confidence in the block voting of the Welshers, if they came to a agreed position, on the Presidency; and even the Commission.

I am not on your side in this one.

starter
so you would have confidence in the block voting of nswca, even if every other state delegate was voting the opposite way to you?

ursogr8
01-11-2004, 07:24 PM
Actually the only one disgracing themselves was you.
If you had not tried defending marketing puff so much that thread would have died out long before it was forcibly axed.

I get it Bill. Some of you guys disgrace yourselves so much it escalates to more than just debate, and so I get the blame because some of you guys lack discipline when you are exasperated and exposed.

K. shut down the thread because of the atttacks, not the defence.





Which no doubt explains why the CV vote was split (3-2 I believe in favour).
Well, it explains one vote, but I don't think I swayed anyone else.

starter

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 08:17 PM
delegate numbers are not proportional to membership, it is proportional to state population numbers.
Actually our delegate numbers are less than if they were based on active players.

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 08:20 PM
It seems that my point is being missed, so ill spell it out for everyone- no one state should have enough delegates to be able to block any constitutional change on their own.
This was discussed at length previously.

As was pointed out then:

According to Shaun back on the old ACF BB, the current constitution came into effect when the ACF was incorporated.

Prior to incorporation the requirement in the ACF Constitution was 2/3 not 3/4 as it was not subject to the Incorportations Act.

So in 1993 when this change occurred the total votes at a National Conference were 21. At that time NSW had 6 votes. That meant that prior to incorporation NSW could not block a constitutional change because they only had 28.6% of the vote. Shaun notes it was made very clear to the delegates that the new requirement would be 75%. Once the constitution was changed and it became 75% then NSW had sufficent votes to block.

Obviously the other states at the time were not opposed to this happening.

Now someone suggested it should be based on active players. I provided the following information:


On the december 2003 active list the number of players are as follows:

NSW - 1122
VIC - 711
QLD - 565
SA - 244
ACT - 231
WA - 205
TAS - 78
NT - 0

As ratios they are as follows and if votes were proportiional then:
NSW - 14.38 - votes 15
VIC - 9.12 - votes 10
QLD - 7.24 - votes 8
SA - 3.13 - votes 4
ACT - 2.96 - votes 3
WA - 2.63 - votes 3
TAS - 1 - votes 1
NT - vote 1
Total votes 45. NSW percentage = 33.33%

If there was 1 vote per hundred or part there of then :
NSW - 12
VIC - 8
QLD - 6
SA - 3
ACT - 3
WA - 3
TAS - 1
Total votes 37. NSW percentage = 32.4%

Note NSW currently has 7 of 23 votes = 30.4%


So no matter how you cut it NSW would have sufficient votes to veto.

Garvinator
01-11-2004, 08:39 PM
So no matter how you cut it NSW would have sufficient votes to veto.i am not debating the figures, as i know based on population figures, active players or membership numbers, nswca would have enough delegates based on 75% to block a constitutional motion.

I am saying that one state should not be able to block a constitutional motion on their own.

Bill Gletsos
01-11-2004, 08:45 PM
i am not debating the figures, as i know based on population figures, active players or membership numbers, nswca would have enough delegates based on 75% to block a constitutional motion.

I am saying that one state should not be able to block a constitutional motion on their own.
Why not when by any valid means of determing delegates they should.

Philosophical viewpoints dont cut it.

arosar
02-11-2004, 09:08 AM
I am saying that one state should not be able to block a constitutional motion on their own.

Stop whining about it. How would you do it then?

I'm kinda curious about these issues re voting systems cos I also follow the IMF issues for example. The IMF is basically controlled by rich countries yet the main clients are poor ones. To put it simplistically, that is.

AR

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 11:19 AM
Stop whining about it. How would you do it then?
im not whining. I just believe that no one state should not be able to block a constitutional motion. A situation could arise where one state blocks a motion that is in the best interest of Australian chess overall, but is not in the interest of the one state that has enough votes on it own to block the motion.

ursogr8
02-11-2004, 11:34 AM
im not whining. I just believe that no one state should not be able to block a constitutional motion. A situation could arise where one state blocks a motion that is in the best interest of Australian chess overall, but is not in the interest of the one state that has enough votes on it own to block the motion.

gg''

I am inclined with Amiel on this one.
If you don't like NSW having the capability to represent their local interest through a vote then I think you have to say what you would do about it.

starter

ps....can you drop this euphemism 'one state' and just type NSW where appropriate. No need for weasel words here.

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 11:52 AM
ps....can you drop this euphemism 'one state' and just type NSW where appropriate. No need for weasel words here.
no i will not because my issue is not with nsw. It is with any state being able to block a constitutional motion on its own. It could even be qld.

66% instead of 75% works for me as a simple change. This being said, even if this was to be proposed as a change, nsw(in this case) could block it.

:hmm: see the problem :doh:

arosar
02-11-2004, 11:56 AM
A situation could arise where one state blocks a motion that is in the best interest of Australian chess overall, but is not in the interest of the one state that has enough votes on it own to block the motion.

Because the motion is clearly not in the best interest of Australian chess.

What is it that you don't get gray? We have more members. We pay more money. What's the problem?

AR

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 12:08 PM
Because the motion is clearly not in the best interest of Australian chess.
so you would then be saying that every other delegate is wrong and doesnt understand what is in the best interest of australian chess? Remember I am saying that nsw would be the only state voting against the motion, whatever it might be.

arosar
02-11-2004, 12:13 PM
so you would then be saying that every other delegate is wrong and doesnt understand what is in the best interest of australian chess?

Nope!

gray, your interference in our interests is not acceptable. You must cease and desist immediately. Else, you will make foes out of certain highly placed individuals.

You leave us alone. We leave you alone. Is this fair?

AR

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 12:30 PM
Nope!

gray, your interference in our interests is not acceptable. You must cease and desist immediately. Else, you will make foes out of certain highly placed individuals.

You leave us alone. We leave you alone. Is this fair?

AR
nope, oh dear i am so scared, amiel might consider me a foe!

Libby
02-11-2004, 12:32 PM
so you would then be saying that every other delegate is wrong and doesnt understand what is in the best interest of australian chess? Remember I am saying that nsw would be the only state voting against the motion, whatever it might be.

Gee - best interests of Australian chess is a term bandied about a lot isn't it? ;)

I won't claim to be well-informed on this debate or ACF constitutional issues, and I will admit some reservations about a single state having the power to block, or push through, change on it's own however ...

"best interests of Australian chess" is a trifle overused or exaggerated and anyone with their own fabulous agenda can use that line to support any argument they personally favour.

Were NSW to vote as a block against a proposal (supported by all other states "in the best interests of Australian chess") does that mean they don't have the interests of Australian chess at heart? Not necessarily, only that with their collective experience and having weighed up the argument, they don't happen to agree that it is in the best interests etc etc.

arosar
02-11-2004, 12:47 PM
nope, oh dear i am so scared, amiel might consider me a foe!

Not I gray - but certainly one or two other fellow BBers.

AR

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 12:52 PM
Hello Libby,

The current situation to change the acf constitution, a motion must recieve 75% of the delegate votes. NSW currently has enough delegate votes that if they were to all voted against the motion and every other state/territory voted for the motion, the motion would fail.

The number of delegates each state is determined by population numbers of each state/territory.

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 12:53 PM
Not I gray - but certainly one or two other fellow BBers.

AR
name names :lol: ;)

george
02-11-2004, 03:27 PM
Hi Libby,

Yes I do consider the term "in the interests of Australian Chess" a term that is thrown around a lot.

I see trying to secure massive sponsorship of our premier chess events to be "in the interests of Australian Chess" - it might not be in the interests of certain coaches or certain states/territories who have their own slant on what is or isnt important to their clients/ clients parents. I understand about different constituencies and that things dont always marry up but such is life from both perspectives.

Regards
George Howard

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 03:47 PM
I won't claim to be well-informed on this debate or ACF constitutional issues, and I will admit some reservations about a single state having the power to block, or push through, change on it's own however ...
NSW can only block constitutional amendments because it has more than 25% of the votes (30.4%).
It cannot push something thru without the support of other states.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 03:49 PM
nope, oh dear i am so scared, amiel might consider me a foe!
Of even worse a goose. ;)

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 03:50 PM
Hello Libby,

The current situation to change the acf constitution, a motion must recieve 75% of the delegate votes. NSW currently has enough delegate votes that if they were to all voted against the motion and every other state/territory voted for the motion, the motion would fail.

The number of delegates each state is determined by population numbers of each state/territory.
As I pointed out thats immaterial, because by any other valid means of determining delegate votes we would have the numbers.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 03:52 PM
Because the motion is clearly not in the best interest of Australian chess.

What is it that you don't get gray? We have more members. We pay more money. What's the problem?

AR
You wont win with gray AR because his objection is philosophical.

ursogr8
02-11-2004, 03:55 PM
so you would have confidence in the block voting of nswca, even if every other state delegate was voting the opposite way to you?

Yes gg''

I have confidence in the NSWCA; if they choose to block vote on a proposal then that is their vote and choice.
Btw, block votes from Victoria would really surprise me because we never seem to reach much consensus on issues; mainly because we have interested parties with such significant financial agendas. For example we have MCC as the wealthiest Club in Australia, and we have UNOWHO with coaching interests. It is rare for these to coalesce with the general interest.

starter

ursogr8
02-11-2004, 03:57 PM
no i will not because my issue is not with nsw. It is with any state being able to block a constitutional motion on its own. It could even be qld.

66% instead of 75% works for me as a simple change. This being said, even if this was to be proposed as a change, nsw(in this case) could block it.

:hmm: see the problem :doh:

But gg'', NSW is surely the only one with the voting power in practice. As I argued elsewhere...VIC never block votes.
So, use NSW, instead of the weasel 'one-state' for the sake of clarity.

starter

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 04:09 PM
no i will not because my issue is not with nsw. It is with any state being able to block a constitutional motion on its own. It could even be qld.

66% instead of 75% works for me as a simple change. This being said, even if this was to be proposed as a change, nsw(in this case) could block it.

:hmm: see the problem :doh:
You are obviously suffering from amnesia. :whistle:

NSW wouldnt need to vote as a block to defeat that change because as has been pointed out previous 75% is required by the Incorporations ACT of the ACT where the ACF is incorporated.

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 04:11 PM
But gg'', NSW is surely the only one with the voting power in practice. As I argued elsewhere...VIC never block votes.
So, use NSW, instead of the weasel 'one-state' for the sake of clarity.

starter
i will not change to saying nsw because then ppl might perceive, incorrectly, that i have an issue with nsw, which i dont in any way.

Libby
02-11-2004, 05:05 PM
Hi Libby,

Yes I do consider the term "in the interests of Australian Chess" a term that is thrown around a lot.

I see trying to secure massive sponsorship of our premier chess events to be "in the interests of Australian Chess" - it might not be in the interests of certain coaches or certain states/territories who have their own slant on what is or isnt important to their clients/ clients parents. I understand about different constituencies and that things dont always marry up but such is life from both perspectives.

Regards
George Howard

Although one could take offence, or read accusation or finger-pointing into my original post (should one have over-used a certain phrase), I guess recent other posts in this thread were making something of an overuse of the "interests of Australian chess" line.

My point, to be specific, is only that differing ideas and opinions can all be in the interests of Australian chess. When people do not agree, or when people are trying to force an argument it their chosen direction, I don't think the most appropriate course is to accuse the other side of not having the interests of Australian chess at heart. Especially when you are dealing with people who clearly do ... and just have a different slant on it. Why do we think my way, your way, his way, her way, the QLD way or the NSW way the ONLY way to act in the interests of Australian chess? Depending on where you stand, either the majority or minority can have the better idea but that's rarely able to be proven conclusively - until after the wrong one topples over!

Assuming you have a reasonable selection of half-decent players/administrators/interested parties etc as your delegates, and you actually have an opportunity to see, discuss and consider any major proposal up for voting AND you are given enough time to see, discuss, consider and consult with the state constituency you represent AND no gun is held to your head that you have 5mins in which to say "yes" or the future of Australian chess is lost forever AND people don't make a habit of tying unrelated proposals together so that Project A fails unless everyone agrees to add Project B then I think we should be trusting people to make the best decisions they can. Or they are a crap delegate and somebody else should have the job.

A lot can be achieved through discussion of ideas and an open mind. And in having the right people for the job. Australia has a long history of "state" agendas and chess is not alone in that respect, even in my sporting experience. :)

george
02-11-2004, 05:55 PM
Hi Libby,

I totally agree with your last post almost every single syllable you wrote.

In practice however for one reason or another be it timing or a rotten president or rotten delegates or simply a bunch of self seeking representatives who hardly ever seek the opinion of their copnstituents things dont actually happen the way they should in a perfect scenario. In fact for all sorts of reasons they rarely do when you have a diverse set of opinions all with varying vested interests all vying for a larger slice of the cake.

So you end up with mostly normal people trying their very best but sometimes making blunders which are generally forgiven for we are all a bunch of people honestly trying our best "in the interests of Australian Chess".

So there you have it because persons of obviously higher level of intelligence and morality dont actually volunteer for these administrative positions or dont seek them you end up with incompetents like myself trying to do ones best.

The above scenario I think to some extent typifies many volunteer organisations where the volunteers who are willing to do the work are criticised by persons outside the organisation - this could apply or may not apply to any volunteer chess organisation. This idea of working with volunteers and looking for the best motivational key for each person for a perceived greater good is to some extent what I was trying to achieve from the Workshop the ACF Council had in Canberra earlier this year.

The larger the organisation , the more complex the power structure ,the more difficult the communication channels the bigger the issues and problems faced.

I hope this doesnt start to become an end of term rave - I better stop here.

Regards
George Howard

Trent Parker
03-11-2004, 12:04 AM
Hello Libby,

The current situation to change the acf constitution, a motion must recieve 75% of the delegate votes. NSW currently has enough delegate votes that if they were to all voted against the motion and every other state/territory voted for the motion, the motion would fail.
.

So What?????????? It is just like France and Russia have vetoing rights in the UN.

Kevin Bonham
03-11-2004, 12:31 AM
The reason this THREAD is so sterile is that the real issue to be debated is verbotten because you guys disgraced yourselves last time the Unmentionable One was mentioned.

That is rubbish on numerous different counts. The issue is not verboten, but posting on behalf of a banned poster is. The Unmentionable One is not unmentionable and the entire cast of Monty Python will not throw rocks at you if you say "David Cordover". The reason for the sensitivity has little to do with people disgracing themselves or otherwise.


How the mods can allow a thread with this title, and not argue to lift the gag, defies rationality.

You are exaggerating the extent to which the gag exists.

I am going to change the title though, because the original one is not an accurate reflection of what it has become and I can't be bothered splitting it when there will not be much useful discussion of the original concept.

Garvinator
03-11-2004, 01:31 AM
So What?????????? It is just like France and Russia have vetoing rights in the UN.
and for what it is worth, i dont agree with that either ;)

ursogr8
03-11-2004, 07:01 AM
That is rubbish on numerous different counts. The issue is not verboten, but posting on behalf of a banned poster is.

KB
Let me see if I understand this the same way as you.
> Two individuals are standing for the Presidency
> This is a thread on a BB with a title relative to the voting contest to decide the Presidency
> One individual is personally banned from posting and all others posters are banned from posting on behalf of the banned member.
> 'On behalf' of probably means
>>> as a surrogate of, or
>>> as a supporter of,or
>>> as an aid to.

To me that sounds like a two-way contest in which only one individual can make his case.
Ok. Perhaps 'verboten issue' was a little strong (although to call it rubbish is a bit offensive). What is it to be called when only one-side can put their case?


The Unmentionable One is not unmentionable and the entire cast of Monty Python will not throw rocks at you if you say "David Cordover".

But saying David Cordover, David Cordover, David Cordover, over, over and over will not be a very persuasive campaign.

What is Banned is saying 'David Cordover is good for chess, and should be elected President".


The reason for the sensitivity has little to do with people disgracing themselves or otherwise.
The sensitivity came because the attackers overstepped a mark. Some disgraced themselves.




You are exaggerating the extent to which the gag exists.
Exaggerating the gag?
Until you typed David Cordover no-one had mentioned this pair of words since K.'s announcement.


I am going to change the title though, because the original one is not an accurate reflection of what it has become and I can't be bothered splitting it when there will not be much useful discussion of the original concept.

And henceforth Stalingrad will be known as Leningrad.


starter

george
03-11-2004, 09:02 AM
Hi All,

If there are two persons still interested in being President ACF closer to the Conference obviously some time will be made available before the vote to the two candidates to address the Conference - this I assume is normal practice.

There are many ways for people to canvass/lobby for support if so desired apart from the BB. I havent noticed either candidate lobbying for support on the BB either before David was banned or after.

Of course by the time the candidates speak to the Conference , delegates may have already made up their mind but that may or may not have happened already.

Closer to the Conference I will take advice from the Executive and advise the candidates. I will send an email to both candidates and inform them of possible arrangements - there are many other positions available on ACF Council and it is not a closed shop. If people are seriously interested in donating at times significant effort for the "interests of Australian Chess" by occupying an administrative position they should call me on 0414841575 or email me on georgeshoward@hotmail.com or contact Jey the current ACF Secretary.

George Howard
President ACF

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 11:45 AM
KB
Let me see if I understand this the same way as you.
> Two individuals are standing for the Presidency
> This is a thread on a BB with a title relative to the voting contest to decide the Presidency
> One individual is personally banned from posting and all others posters are banned from posting on behalf of the banned member.
> 'On behalf' of probably means
>>> as a surrogate of, or
>>> as a supporter of,or
>>> as an aid to.

To me that sounds like a two-way contest in which only one individual can make his case.
Ok. Perhaps 'verboten issue' was a little strong (although to call it rubbish is a bit offensive). What is it to be called when only one-side can put their case?

Actually if you look at ther start of this thread it started with a comment regards the nominations cut-off date. This was later followed by a question regarding nominations for other positions.

It has had nothing to do with the discussion of the respective merits or cases of the candidates.




Exaggerating the gag?
Until you typed David Cordover no-one had mentioned this pair of words since K.'s announcement.
Actually that is incorrect.
George mentioned him in 3 seperate posts in Mt Buller threads after K.'s announcement.

Ian Rout
03-11-2004, 12:01 PM
Perhaps You-Know-Who should re-badge himself as ChessGandhi?

Oscar Wilde said something that may be applicable on the subject of having people talking about you.

ursogr8
03-11-2004, 12:24 PM
Actually if you look at the start of this thread it started with a comment regards the nominations cut-off date.

You are doing it again Bill. You attempt to find a pedantic weakness in the english of a poster's argument and use that to erode the credibility of the argument. It proves nothing.

In fact the pedantic weakness you spied is not even there. In actuality, the start of this thread is the thread title, not Cin's comment about infractions on dates. And the thread title (or as it was then) logically sought posts on the candidates suitability amongst other topics. Thus my post #83, where I said "This is a thread on a BB with a title relative to the voting contest to decide the Presidency" is in fact 100% accurate.
Are you convinced by this argument? Of course you should not be convinced! I have used the same pedantic tactic that you used, and it wasn't convincing when you tried it, and it is not convincing when I do the same.



Actually that is incorrect.
Xxxxx mentioned him in 3 seperate posts in Mt Buller threads after K.'s announcement.

Well, well, well, The SEARCH function is your friend, as you once posted. :rolleyes:
I thought those three separate mentions to be the pits. So much so that I didn't trust myself previously to comment.
Yes, mentions they were. So, pedantically, you are correct if you include ALL threads. But let me hear you argue that they were fair to the GURU. Bill, they were disingenuous free kicks against a poster who is banned. They would have been better left unsaid.

starter

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 01:09 PM
You are doing it again Bill. You attempt to find a pedantic weakness in the english of a poster's argument and use that to erode the credibility of the argument. It proves nothing.
The only one doing it again is you. It is like your "marketing puff" rubbish all over again.


In fact the pedantic weakness you spied is not even there. In actuality, the start of this thread is the thread title, not Cin's comment about infractions on dates. And the thread title (or as it was then) logically sought posts on the candidates suitability amongst other topics. Thus my post #83, where I said "This is a thread on a BB with a title relative to the voting contest to decide the Presidency" is in fact 100% accurate.
Actually this thread was split from another thread. A moderator picked the title (one that was not an accurate reflection of the content).
For you to argue its about the voting contest is just plain rubbish.
There has been at no time been any indication from any of the posts that the thread was the voting contest.


Are you convinced by this argument? Of course you should not be convinced! I have used the same pedantic tactic that you used, and it wasn't convincing when you tried it, and it is not convincing when I do the same.
The only one being non convincing is you starter.



Well, well, well, The SEARCH function is your friend, as you once posted. :rolleyes:
I thought those three separate mentions to be the pits. So much so that I didn't trust myself previously to comment.
Yes, mentions they were. So, pedantically, you are correct if you include ALL threads. But let me hear you argue that they were fair to the GURU. Bill, they were disingenuous free kicks against a poster who is banned. They would have been better left unsaid.
You stated there were mentions of his name since the ban.
That was clearly false.
Your decision to ignore certain things does not your blinkered views fact.

george
03-11-2004, 03:51 PM
Hi All,

Yes I did mention David's name on another thread three times. The ban is on using his name in a malicious manner which I would never do.

I thought I explained myself on that thread quite well so Im not quite sure what a previous poster was on about.

Regards
George Howard

arosar
03-11-2004, 03:54 PM
I thought I explained myself on that thread quite well so Im not quite sure what a previous poster was on about.

Mr President, sir . . . don't worry about starter. He carries on like there's no tomorrow over the most trivial matters. If you bother to think about whatever it is he's straining to say, you'll just go nuts like him. He and his BHCC mob are clearly on the wrong side. We don't worry about those on the wrong side.

AR

Spiny Norman
03-11-2004, 06:59 PM
So you end up with mostly normal people trying their very best but sometimes making blunders which are generally forgiven for we are all a bunch of people honestly trying our best "in the interests of Australian Chess".

So there you have it because persons of obviously higher level of intelligence and morality dont actually volunteer for these administrative positions or dont seek them you end up with incompetents like myself trying to do ones best.


Hey George,

Don't be discouraged (!) by the above. All of us, even those with the higher levels of intelligence (whatever THAT means), migrate up the ladder of authority and influence. Onward and upwards, until we're promoted into something we can't quite do, and there we sit, having risen to the level of our incompetence! :) I know that's been true of me work-wise.

There's lots of different kinds of intelligence, and the kind that helps one person play better chess than the next bloke doesn't necessarily qualify that same person as a better:

Organiser of tournaments
Coach/Trainer of other players
Manager of a club's financial affairs
Chairperson of meetings
Negotiater of contracts
Fundraiser
etc, etc

It'd be great if more people could play a part in their areas of strength.

Oh ... one more thing, a rule that I live by ... making mistakes/blunders is inevitable (in chess, in life). As long as we all "fail forward" (as the Yanks say) and learn from the mistakes, then its all OK.

The only really unforgiveable thing is if we keep making the same kinds of mistakes over and over again....

Kevin Bonham
03-11-2004, 11:24 PM
Ok. Perhaps 'verboten issue' was a little strong (although to call it rubbish is a bit offensive). What is it to be called when only one-side can put their case?

My point was that the reason for that being anywhere near the case is that the issue was taken up via a threat of legal action, rather than by a simple request for moderation. That is why he was banned and that is why posting on his behalf is banned.

If misleading or inaccurate claims (intentional or otherwise) about the reason for the banning continue to be made, you may find that such claims get banned as well.

cincinnatus
12-11-2004, 11:00 PM
This might seem to be rather off the topic, but it was one of the reasons I started this thread (yes it was I, Bill), 92 posts ago.

The original justification for the ACF Constitution's Section 10.o. The election of President of the Federation ... "ninety days before the date on which the Annual National Conference" stipulation, is to allow for Officers to fill the other Executive positions to be then found in the city(s) from which the candidate President(s) originate.

The rule appears to be an artefact of pre-teleconference times, when it was thought (and probably was) unworkable to have Executive Officers spread out all over the country. Not so today. So why not change the Constitution (in 2006) to make the election of a President no different from the election of any other Officer?

The current situation allows the Executive and/or Council (as it did on this occasion) to manipulate the all-important nominations by releasing (or not-releasing) the names of the nominees at a time of their own choosing.

Garvinator
12-11-2004, 11:06 PM
The current situation allows the Executive and/or Council (as it did on this occasion)
can you give more information on this matter? Or are you going to run away again after attempting to lay a landmine. You still have not told us who you are.

cincinnatus
12-11-2004, 11:38 PM
ggrayggray, you are "in the loop" and much closer to these decisions than I, so you probably know very well that the first nomination was received in good time. I can only imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth that must have then ensued as the Council/Executive imagined the hell they were soon to be cast into should they not find a more "suitable", rival candidate.

By keeping the nomination close to their chests, not mentioning it in the Bulletin or on this BB (who's to know - a deluge of nominations might have followed) and, incidentally, by banning the aforementioned from the BB, the Council/Executive was able to engineer a ballot they were happy with.

Will this post be seen as a defence of "you know who" and swiftly deleted?

Garvinator
12-11-2004, 11:47 PM
ggrayggray, you are "in the loop" and much closer to these decisions than I, so you probably know very well that the first nomination was received in good time. I can only imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth that must have then ensued as the Council/Executive imagined the hell they were soon to be cast into should they not find a more "suitable", rival candidate.

By keeping the nomination close to their chests, not mentioning it in the Bulletin or on this BB (who's to know - a deluge of nominations might have followed) and, incidentally, by banning the aforementioned from the BB, the Council/Executive was able to engineer a ballot they were happy with.

Will this post be seen as a defence of "you know who" and swiftly deleted?
actually regarding acf council matters, i am not in the loop at all. I do NOT participate in acf council discussions in any manner. The only way I find out acf council matters is either from announcements on here or from the acf bulletins etc.

I am 2004 Grand Prix Co-ordinator. This does not get me any type of a seat at acf council discussions.

All I know is that there were two nominations for the position of President before the 90 day deadline.

The banning of David Cordover is completely unrelated to his nomination for the acf presidency. It was a decision made by the administrators of this forum.

Bill Gletsos
13-11-2004, 12:13 AM
This might seem to be rather off the topic, but it was one of the reasons I started this thread (yes it was I, Bill), 92 posts ago.

The original justification for the ACF Constitution's Section 10.o. The election of President of the Federation ... "ninety days before the date on which the Annual National Conference" stipulation, is to allow for Officers to fill the other Executive positions to be then found in the city(s) from which the candidate President(s) originate.

The rule appears to be an artefact of pre-teleconference times, when it was thought (and probably was) unworkable to have Executive Officers spread out all over the country. Not so today. So why not change the Constitution (in 2006) to make the election of a President no different from the election of any other Officer?

The current situation allows the Executive and/or Council (as it did on this occasion) to manipulate the all-important nominations by releasing (or not-releasing) the names of the nominees at a time of their own choosing.
There was no manipulation that I am aware of.
Nominations were called for and announced when nominations closed.
There is nothing unusal in that.

Bill Gletsos
13-11-2004, 12:26 AM
ggrayggray, you are "in the loop" and much closer to these decisions than I, so you probably know very well that the first nomination was received in good time.
Actually gg is not in the loop.
He is neither a member of the ACF Executive or Council.


I can only imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth that must have then ensued as the Council/Executive imagined the hell they were soon to be cast into should they not find a more "suitable", rival candidate.
Can you actually back this up with anything other than idle speculation on your part.
I personally was aware that Denis Jessop had been considering nominating for a considerable period of time and well before nominations were even called for.


By keeping the nomination close to their chests, not mentioning it in the Bulletin or on this BB (who's to know - a deluge of nominations might have followed) and, incidentally, by banning the aforementioned from the BB, the Council/Executive was able to engineer a ballot they were happy with.
This is just plain rubbish.
There was no requirement to announce the nominees publically until nominations closed.
If people wanted to nominate there was nothing stopping them from doing so.
There nominating or not nominating based on possible other nominees is silly.
If they felt after nominations closed and the nominees were announced then if they so desired they could have withdrawn.

The ACF Executive/Council had nothing to do with the banning of the Guru by the BB admin.


Will this post be seen as a defence of "you know who" and swiftly deleted?
I doubt it would be deleted.
It will more likely be seen as unfounded idle speculation by an anonymous poster.

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2004, 01:38 PM
By keeping the nomination close to their chests, not mentioning it in the Bulletin or on this BB (who's to know - a deluge of nominations might have followed) and, incidentally, by banning the aforementioned from the BB, the Council/Executive was able to engineer a ballot they were happy with.

This BB has nothing to do with the ACF. It is privately owned and David Cordover was banned by the owner. No ACF Councillors, Executive or other personnel were even consulted in the making of this decision.


Will this post be seen as a defence of "you know who" and swiftly deleted?

I hope it will remain as proof for all to see that you are a total idiot who froths unfactual rubbish without bothering to ascertain the facts first. Your form here has been persistently so poor that anyone who assumes anything you say about any ACF constitutional or political matter to be false will very seldom be surprised.

cincinnatus
08-12-2004, 08:23 PM
What IS the rationale for the ACF President currently having to be nominated (unlike other office bearers) three months before the AGM?

arosar
09-12-2004, 09:12 AM
Denis Jessop should be our next Prez. End of story. His email today deserves to be reprinted here.

He did not mention it, but I think this Denis fellow is also a bit of a keen photographer I think. That's good enough for me.

Let's not worry about that other bloke.

AR

Trent Parker
09-12-2004, 09:42 AM
I wonder whether the other candidate will even get one vote........ Maybe a mexican????

ursogr8
09-12-2004, 10:29 AM
I wonder whether the other candidate will even get one vote........ Maybe a mexican????

Nup not me.
For reasons I have already posted.

You could help us all read your (t c n) mind if you could point to a particular Mexican. Unless you were fishing in the whole pond.