XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, can.general, can.politics
XPost: edm.general, rec.arts.drwho
From: bobbylarter@gmail.com
Ignis Fatuus wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 01:19:28 +1000, Bob Larter
> wrote:
>
>> Ignis Fatuus wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:04:37 +1000, Bob Larter
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sweetness wrote:
>>>>> "Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message
>>>>> news:d28o0594s5sh64ti3atipmuimifun77jco@4ax.com...
>>>>> : On Thu, 14 May 2009 15:22:34 +1000, Bob Larter
>>>>>
>>>>> : wrote:
>>>>> :
>>>>> : >Meat Plow wrote:
>>>>> : >> On Tue, 12 May 2009 19:11:34 +1000, Bob Larter
>>>>> : >> wrote:
>>>>> : >>
>>>>> : >>> sychotic hicken wrote:
>>>>> : >>>> Ignis Fatuus as King Henry V: Though
>>>>> all that
>>>>> : >>>> I can do is nothing worth, Since that my penitence comes after
>>>>> all,
>>>>> : >>>> Imploring Pardon.
>>>>> : >>>>> It's now OFFICIAL. Bob Larter has been Nominated for Golden
>>>>> Killfile
>>>>> : >>>>> of the Month and seconded By
>>>>> : >>>>> The Honest One
>>>>> : >>>>> Newsgroups:
>>>>> : >>>>>
>>>>> alt.usenet.kooks,rec.arts.drwho,alt.suicide.holiday,uk.rec.sheds,uk.adve
>>>>> : >>>>> rts.computer
>>>>> : >>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>> : >>>>>
>>>>> : >>>>> Votes by a show of hands before Any Other Business, and we
>>>>> should have
>>>>> : >>>>> him hung out to dry by Tuesday week.
>>>>> : >>>>
>>>>> : >>> Best of luck with that, kid.
>>>>> : >>
>>>>> : >>
>>>>> : >> Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahah who are these fucktards?
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >Sweetness nominated sychotic hicken for an award, so he's
>>>>> been
>>>>> : >trying to recruit folks from ASH & RADW to fuck with AUK. Oh, &
>>>>> he's
>>>>> : >been froging yours truly.
>>>>> :
>>>>> : Of course you had nothing to do with awarding one of ours a golden
>>>>> : killfile because Yads asked you to...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am pretty sure that Bob Larter has "awarded" nothing ta anybody as
>>>>> FNVW, yet, az he's brand spunkin' new ta the office.
>>>> Ignis was confusing a nomination with an award. Anybody can make a
>>>> nomination, but I (as FNVW) have to validate it for it to actually go on
>>>> the ballot. In this case, the nomination was invalid, so I rejected it.
>>> Disingenuous. You accepted the nomination without knowledge of the
>>> individual being nominated, and then dropped it on a technicality. I
>>> just felt that one ought to ask for justification before accepting a
>>> nomination - particularly from a former winner, and in the middle of a
>>> declaration of flame war. It's a matter of judging the 'mood' of the
>>> group.
>> Okay, you have a valid point here. All I can say is that being new to
>> the job, I was a little overwhelmed. OTOH, over the next couple of days,
>> various Kookologists pointed out to me that the person making the
>> nomination was a kook, so even without the technical point, I would've
>> rejected the nomination anyway. Also, as you say, anyone nominating
>> someone for an award should provide evidence to back up their
>> nomination. Without that evidence, their nomination would be rejected.
>> In this particular case, it was rejected before any of those issues were
>> brought up.
>
> Sorry, I over-reacted. Much better to let the matter drop now as
> you've explained the situation fully, and in a most cordial fashion.
Danke. ;^)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
