| |
Main
Date: 10 Aug 2008 05:45:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Why the motion lost in Dallas
|
Why the motion lost in Dallas.
I was here in Dallas in the back of the room listening but I did not
speak. I do not know how many people realized that they were talking
about me the entire time.
The motions lost by about 39 to 26. Looking around the room, I could
see that everybody voting against the motions to ask Truong to resign
were non-computer people, people who rarely if ever read the Internet
and who are learning about this for the first time.
To them, hearing Truong's non-defense defense for the first time must
have seemed reasonable. But to us who are hearing Truong just repeat
the same nonsense that has been repeated hundreds of times over the
last 11 months, we could clearly see that Truong is guilty. Yet those
who have better things to do with their time than spending thousands
of hours reading the internet could not see that.
Signed,
Defeated in Dallas
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2008 12:42:19
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Why the motion lost in Dallas
|
One good point: The anti-Sam Sloan by Bill Goichberg was defeated.
Goichberg proposed a system by which one could vote AGAINST a
candidate, thereby preventing him from being elected. The purpose was
to stop me from being elected again.
This motion failed by a wide margin after I spoke against it.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2008 12:34:29
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Why the motion lost in Dallas
|
Another major factor is the seatings of unknown people as delegates. I
recognized only about 1/3rd of the people here. I believe that Donna
Alarie said that 45 people were seated to fill up deklegate slots who
were not actually delegates. Few of those present understood the
issues as they were attanding their first delegates meeting. I think
this explains some of the key bad decisions, such as a decision to
ignore the $50,000 cap the delegates placed on the imaginary money
that was assed at the meeting last year.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2008 06:01:36
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Why the motion lost in Dallas? Because it was stupid!
|
On Aug 10, 7:45=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Why the motion lost in Dallas.
>
> I was here in Dallas in the back of the room listening but I did not
> speak. I do not know how many people realized that they were talking
> about me the entire time.
>
> The motions lost by about 39 to 26. Looking around the room, I could
> see that everybody voting against the motions to ask Truong to resign
> were non-computer people, people who rarely if ever read the Internet
> and who are learning about this for the first time.
>
> To them, hearing Truong's non-defense defense for the first time must
> have seemed reasonable. But to us who are hearing Truong just repeat
> the same nonsense that has been repeated hundreds of times over the
> last 11 months, we could clearly see that Truong is guilty. Yet those
> who have better things to do with their time than spending thousands
> of hours reading the internet could not see that.
>
> Signed,
>
> Defeated in Dallas
Truth,Justice and the American way prevail again and did yesterday.
|
|
