Forum Search:
RSD No Spam
rec.sport.disc without the spam


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER)
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #838 is a reply to message #807] Mon, 29 September 2008 10:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 29, 10:03 am, Chuck Yu <c...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
> > > 3) Question design: I haven't seen the questions yet (if Toad posted
> > > them, I must have missed them), but I wouldn't be surprised if they
> > > were far from neutral.
>
> > here are two of the questions/issues
>
> > 1) refs in ultimate      S    N    U
>
> > 2) spirit scoring in ultimate       S    N    U
>
> > cant be much more straight forward than that.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------ ----
>
> I was one of the people who took the poll. Concerning the question
> design, I agree that the questions were pretty fair. Todd, maybe post
> the entire survey somewhere if you haven't already?
>
> However, if Todd Leber acted the same way towards everyone else before
> giving everyone the survey as he did towards me, then I'm not so sure
> about the results. He asked me how I felt about refs and when I said
> "neutral," he started his spiel about refs and continued pressing me
> as to how I would feel, if, for example, baseball had no umpires.
> Then, I was given the survey. I think that this introduces bias to the
> survey.

i can be very persuasive.......but did i persuade you? i am just so
perplexed as to how one can be netural on this issue that i like to
try and understand why. But if ya cant give me good reasons for being
neutral.....i will go socratic on ya.

in conclusion, i didnt persuade anyone to change their answers and
only initiated a very few conversations based on their replys after
seein them......not prior to them answering. and i never once asked
any question to anyone other than "can i get you to take this survey
real quick" prior to handing them a notebook with the survey in it.
there wasnt much to be said to anyone that answered with a circled S
or U, right?
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #856 is a reply to message #763] Mon, 29 September 2008 11:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Baer
Messages: 387
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 29, 12:55 am, Joe Seidler <j...@seidler.com> wrote:
> Baer,
>
> You support a candidate running for the UPA Board who said this in
> response to someone saying his survey was conducted of such a small
> sample that it's not meaningful enough to draw conclusions:
>

I acknowledged that Toad's survey included inherent biases and that we
can't really extrapolate it to account for the entire nation. In that
sense, I fully agree with what most of you have been saying here,
although it's also admirable that Toad was reaching out in person to
ask questions.

I don't agree with everything Toad does, and I am more than willing to
change my mind (at this point, the way he presents himself and they
way it turns off potential voters is as important as his actual ideas
for the sport).

Reading your statements on what a good board candidate should be, I
definitely think we can all learn something valuable from your insight
as well.

The whole "you're with us or you're against us" angle is another gem
from the Bush playbook that a lot of people seem to be falling into
here. It's more fun to consider ALL ideas.
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #865 is a reply to message #731] Mon, 29 September 2008 11:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Baer
Messages: 387
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 28, 12:10 pm, Joe Seidler <j...@seidler.com> wrote:
>
> If the majority of open players in one city in North Carolina want a
> particular rule, and the majority of the UPA members do not want the
> rule, then end of story as far as the UPA is concerned.
>
> It is the same on any Board of Directors. If one Director wants to
> pass a proposal, and the Board votes but does not pass it; then end of
> story. If that Director continues to whine that his proposal should be
> passed and everyone is wrong and dumb not to, he is wasting his time,
> the Board's time, and the entire membership's time since they want
> their Board to be working on productive things.

Joe, your BOD candidate statement in 2004 included this:

"I started the Board Development Program to begin improving the
Board's performance, and I proposed an annual online questionnaire to
solicit the members' evaluation of UPA services. My polling proposal
was not approved, but I will continue to push for it."

http://www.upa.org/upa/bod/boardann.shtml#Joe_Seidler

First of all, this proposal sounded like a good idea. Can you tell us
more about the Board Development Program? Why was your proposal for
the online questionnaire voted down?

Second of all, this statement ("My polling proposal was not approved,
but I will continue to push for it.") seems to be in opposition with
your post above. I realize that was several years ago, but what
changed your mind on this topic?
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #869 is a reply to message #856] Mon, 29 September 2008 12:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Seidler
Messages: 482
Registered: September 2008
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
On Sep 29, 11:09 am, Baer <collin.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 12:55 am, Joe Seidler <j...@seidler.com> wrote:
>
> > Baer,
>
> > You support a candidate running for the UPA Board who said this in
> > response to someone saying his survey was conducted of such a small
> > sample that it's not meaningful enough to draw conclusions:
>
> I acknowledged that Toad's survey included inherent biases and that we
> can't really extrapolate it to account for the entire nation. In that
> sense, I fully agree with what most of you have been saying here,
> although it's also admirable that Toad was reaching out in person to
> ask questions.
>
> I don't agree with everything Toad does, and I am more than willing to
> change my mind (at this point, the way he presents himself and they
> way it turns off potential voters is as important as his actual ideas
> for the sport).
>
> Reading your statements on what a good board candidate should be, I
> definitely think we can all learn something valuable from your insight
> as well.
>
> The whole "you're with us or you're against us" angle is another gem
> from the Bush playbook that a lot of people seem to be falling into
> here. It's more fun to consider ALL ideas.

Toad has done some good things for Ultimate with the tournaments he
has run in NC. However, his inability to accept that the majority of
the UPA membership disagrees with some of his views (and perhaps those
of some open players in his section) eliminates him as a viable
candidate for the UPA Board IMO. The UPA is an organization that
serves the majority of its members. If a small subset does not get its
way because the majority voted against their idea, they are not being
misrepresented. They are simply out voted. That happens in every US
election. I'm at a loss how it could be any simpler. [note: I've seen
posts on rsd in the past saying Ultimate in NC is different... often
claiming better. Perhaps the people who play Ultimate in NC are
different. If that's true, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the
majority do not always agree with their proposals.]

I would like to give a personal example -
When I was on the UPA Board 2002-2004, I thought the UPA should survey
the membership annually on how they think the Board and Staff are
serving them. I proposed a web based survey be taken once a year. The
majority of the Board (and Sandie too if I remember correctly,
although she doesn't vote on Board matters) disagreed and did not pass
my proposal. I was very disappointed and thought they were being
insular. However, I did not lose all respect for the Board nor feel I
was not being represented. Someday I hope they pass a proposal like
mine, but until then, I continue to support the UPA since without it,
there would be very limited Ultimate played competitively in the US.

If a candidate wants to join the UPA Board in order to change a rule,
that's fine. But in running for election if that candidate says s/he
is not currently being represented, that means he/she does not
understand the process. And IMO that candidate would be a bad Board
member. In fact, I think a person with those beliefs would probably be
very dictatorial in their leadership style. Any disagreement, even if
by the majority, would be resisted by a person like that. S/he would
likely badger the majority to change their minds, but never bend to
their will. They would want more votes saying something was not right
with the previous vote. And when that new vote again did not support
his/her view, s/he would want another vote claiming some other
problem.

I am amazed how a person can rail against a majority vote as if his
view is being neglected. Every time his party loses an election in NC,
I guess he feels he is not being represented?
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #871 is a reply to message #865] Mon, 29 September 2008 12:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Seidler
Messages: 482
Registered: September 2008
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
On Sep 29, 11:33 am, Baer <collin.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 12:10 pm, Joe Seidler <j...@seidler.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If the majority of open players in one city in North Carolina want a
> > particular rule, and the majority of the UPA members do not want the
> > rule, then end of story as far as the UPA is concerned.
>
> > It is the same on any Board of Directors. If one Director wants to
> > pass a proposal, and the Board votes but does not pass it; then end of
> > story. If that Director continues to whine that his proposal should be
> > passed and everyone is wrong and dumb not to, he is wasting his time,
> > the Board's time, and the entire membership's time since they want
> > their Board to be working on productive things.
>
> Joe, your BOD candidate statement in 2004 included this:
>
> "I started the Board Development Program to begin improving the
> Board's performance, and I proposed an annual online questionnaire to
> solicit the members' evaluation of UPA services. My polling proposal
> was not approved, but I will continue to push for it."
>
> http://www.upa.org/upa/bod/boardann.shtml#Joe_Seidler
>
> First of all, this proposal sounded like a good idea. Can you tell us
> more about the Board Development Program? Why was your proposal for
> the online questionnaire voted down?
>
> Second of all, this statement ("My polling proposal was not approved,
> but I will continue to push for it.") seems to be in opposition with
> your post above. I realize that was several years ago, but what
> changed your mind on this topic?

Baer,
If your second question is referring to why I would continue to push
for it eventhough it was voted down, I meant if reelected, I would
bring up the topic again in a future year. I see that as distinct from
fighting to bring it up again and again immediately after its defeat.
I was hoping I might explain it in a better way that others might
accept. I wasn't reelected so I guess we'll never know what would have
happened...

The Board Development Program was accepted and continues to this day I
think. It was meant, in part, to evaluate what strengths and
weaknesses the Board had, so that we could work on the weaknesses.
Perhaps the Board was missing certain expertise that would help, and
the BDP would hopefully point that out.
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #872 is a reply to message #869] Mon, 29 September 2008 12:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Baer
Messages: 387
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Solid response to both of my previous posts, Joe. Thanks!
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #884 is a reply to message #869] Mon, 29 September 2008 13:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 29, 3:18 pm, Joe Seidler <j...@seidler.com> wrote:

>
> Toad has done some good things for Ultimate with the tournaments he
> has run in NC.

you dont think the NUA and MLU attempts were "good things for
ultimate"?
------------------------------------------------------------ ----



However, his inability to accept that the majority of
> the UPA membership disagrees with some of his views (and perhaps those
> of some open players in his section) eliminates him as a viable
> candidate for the UPA Board IMO.

see thats pure speculation because you simply dont KNOW what he
majority of the membership agrees or disagrees with. how could ya
with only 10% feedback?
------------------------------------------------------------ ------




The UPA is an organization that
> serves the majority of its members. If a small subset does not get its
> way because the majority voted against their idea, they are not being
> misrepresented.

well you spirit zealots will have to remember that when we leber-als
take over the majority of the board.
------------------------------------------------------




They are simply out voted. That happens in every US
> election. I'm at a loss how it could be any simpler. [note: I've seen
> posts on rsd in the past saying Ultimate in NC is different... often
> claiming better. Perhaps the people who play Ultimate in NC are
> different. If that's true, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the
> majority do not always agree with their proposals.]


are you talking shit about NC ultimate???
---------------------------------------------------
>
> I would like to give a personal example -
> When I was on the UPA Board 2002-2004, I thought the UPA should survey
> the membership annually on how they think the Board and Staff are
> serving them. I proposed a web based survey be taken once a year. The
> majority of the Board (and Sandie too if I remember correctly,
> although she doesn't vote on Board matters) disagreed and did not pass
> my proposal. I was very disappointed and thought they were being
> insular. However, I did not lose all respect for the Board nor feel I
> was not being represented. Someday I hope they pass a proposal like
> mine, but until then, I continue to support the UPA since without it,
> there would be very limited Ultimate played competitively in the US.


thing is, quality control on how good of a job the boards doin and
opening lines of communication is but ONE of my many initiative
proposals.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
>
> If a candidate wants to join the UPA Board in order to change a rule,
> that's fine. But in running for election if that candidate says s/he
> is not currently being represented, that means he/she does not
> understand the process.

whaaaaaaaa?!?!? i though that was the whole point OF the process
--------------------------------------------------------




And IMO that candidate would be a bad Board
> member. In fact, I think a person with those beliefs would probably be
> very dictatorial in their leadership style.

so you got a crystal ball of your own there to, eh joe?
------------------------------------------------------------ -----




Any disagreement, even if
> by the majority, would be resisted by a person like that. S/he would
> likely badger the majority to change their minds, but never bend to
> their will.

kinda like any surpressed group fighting for there rights??????
------------------------------------------------------------ --





They would want more votes saying something was not right
> with the previous vote.

as in the hbo movie "recount"
------------------------------------------------------------ ----



And when that new vote again did not support
> his/her view, s/he would want another vote claiming some other
> problem.


seems like youve had experience with these "subversive" types before
------------------------------------------------------------ --
>
> I am amazed how a person can rail against a majority vote as if his
> view is being neglected.

what do you mean......thats exactly what i'm saying the spirit centric
board is actually doing.
------------------------------------------------------------ --




Every time his party loses an election in NC,
> I guess he feels he is not being represented?


but theres only one party in ultimate(in the upa admin anyways) and
thats the spirit zealot party. if anything i'm like ralph nadar
trying to establish a third (or in our case, 2nd) party. and where
ralphs legacy might be standardizing seatbelts in cars, mine will be
standardizing officials in ultimate.
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #894 is a reply to message #884] Mon, 29 September 2008 15:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 29, 1:20 pm, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:
> see thats pure speculation because you simply dont KNOW what he
> majority of the membership agrees or disagrees with.  how could ya
> with only 10% feedback?

When folks pay their dues and decline every offer to voice complaint,
that's feedback too. I'm actually not sure that there's a better form
of feedback than the continued decision to give someone money.

> > election. I'm at a loss how it could be any simpler. [note: I've seen
> > posts on rsd in the past saying Ultimate in NC is different... often
> > claiming better. Perhaps the people who play Ultimate in NC are
> > different. If that's true, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the
> > majority do not always agree with their proposals.]
>
> are you talking shit about NC ultimate???

I can't see how. Can you?

> >  Any disagreement, even if
> > by the majority, would be resisted by a person like that. S/he would
> > likely badger the majority to change their minds, but never bend to
> > their will.
>
> kinda like any surpressed group fighting for there rights??????

What suppression? Where's the coercion here? Anyone can vote that
wants to. Anyone can fill out the proffered surveys that wants to.
Decisions are, as always, made by those who show up.

> but theres only one party in ultimate(in the upa admin anyways) and
> thats the spirit zealot party.  

Parties are useful for expedience in large voting bodies. They're
useful for signaling when the constituency is so large that voters
don't know the potential representatives. Beyond that, they're kind
of a hassle since party platforms necessarily combine disparate
positions under one grouping. Why, for instance are the "big
military" and "Christian fundamentalist" groups allied in our system?
It's kind of a price you have to pay when you need signaling to
martial the varying interests of a large populace.

None of that really applies here. The board isn't small enough that
it would need permanent factions (i.e., longer than the discussion of
any particular measure) and the constituency isn't big enough that
voters need party identification to tell them things about the
candidates. What I'm saying here is that it's not that there's one
party, it's that there's no parties.

Clearly there are still single-issue voters (and your obsession with
refs makes you one of them), but parties aren't needed to respond to
that. In fact, parties actually make life rough for single-issue
voters since they have to accept all the other planks that they don't
care about in order to support the one issue that they do.

> if anything i'm like ralph nadar
> trying to establish a third (or in our case, 2nd) party.  and where
> ralphs legacy might be standardizing seatbelts in cars, mine will be
> standardizing officials in ultimate.

Silly Toad, everyone knows that Nader's legacy was Dubya's election!

~p
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #897 is a reply to message #894] Mon, 29 September 2008 15:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 29, 6:28 pm, "MrPi...@gmail.com" <MrPi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When folks pay their dues and decline every offer to voice complaint,
> that's feedback too.  I'm actually not sure that there's a better form
> of feedback than the continued decision to give someone money.


like swill said, "dont mistake tolerance for support".
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
>
> > kinda like any surpressed group fighting for there rights??????
>
> What suppression?

the supression of the spirit zealots to keep refs out of ultimate.
------------------------------------------------------




 Where's the coercion here?  Anyone can vote that
> wants to.  Anyone can fill out the proffered surveys that wants to.
> Decisions are, as always, made by those who show up.


in the recreation industry getting less than 10% feedback on a wants
and needs assessment dosent bode well for the administration. but
since that is to their benefit, they dont have a problem with it.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
>
> > but theres only one party in ultimate(in the upa admin anyways) and
> > thats the spirit zealot party.  
>
> Parties are useful for expedience in large voting bodies.  They're
> useful for signaling when the constituency is so large that voters
> don't know the potential representatives.  Beyond that, they're kind
> of a hassle since party platforms necessarily combine disparate
> positions under one grouping.  Why, for instance are the "big
> military" and "Christian fundamentalist" groups allied in our system?


same reason the spirit zealots are.......they are insane and power
hungry.
------------------------------------------------------------ --
>
> None of that really applies here.  The board isn't small enough that
> it would need permanent factions (i.e., longer than the discussion of
> any particular measure) and the constituency isn't big enough that
> voters need party identification to tell them things about the
> candidates.  What I'm saying here is that it's not that there's one
> party, it's that there's no parties.


oh theres a party. who but a bunch of spirit zealots would make the
creed "if theres ref, it aint ultimate" policy.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
>
> Clearly there are still single-issue voters (and your obsession with
> refs makes you one of them), but parties aren't needed to respond to
> that.

depends on your stance. you obviously dont want it because the party
you support is in control......and always has been. thing is, every
year, their creed becomes less and less popular.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------


 In fact, parties actually make life rough for single-issue
> voters since they have to accept all the other planks that they don't
> care about in order to support the one issue that they do.


refs in ultimate is really the only conrtoversial issue on the
table.......besides the upa supporting a semi pro league.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
>
> > if anything i'm like ralph nadar
> > trying to establish a third (or in our case, 2nd) party.  and where
> > ralphs legacy might be standardizing seatbelts in cars, mine will be
> > standardizing officials in ultimate.
>
> Silly Toad, everyone knows that Nader's legacy was Dubya's election!

not according to ralph, HE says it was the seatbelts......now it might
be establishing a third party that can "join the debates".
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #907 is a reply to message #894] Mon, 29 September 2008 16:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joe Seidler
Messages: 482
Registered: September 2008
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
I think we may be getting to the root of how Toad thinks. Below is a
comment I made followed by his reply:

JOE:
>>Every time his party loses an election in NC, I guess he feels he is not being represented?

TOAD:
> but theres only one party in ultimate(in the upa admin anyways) and
> thats the spirit zealot party. if anything i'm like ralph nadar
> trying to establish a third (or in our case, 2nd) party. and where
> ralphs legacy might be standardizing seatbelts in cars, mine will be
> standardizing officials in ultimate.

So Toad believes it's him against the UPA world. It's a dictatorship.
The elections for Board members are rigged. And he must save us from
the evil dictator. Nadar against the big parties. And for once, I
totally agree with him. He is like Nadar; very outspoken against
anything the establishment does. Yes, Nadar probably can tilt a close
election when he runs and gets a few percentage points of the vote,
and yes the result is exactly opposite what Nadar stands for (that is,
he helps get the GOP candidate elected). IMO Nadar is a kook who has
done good things for consumers but is just so mixed up he can't see
the forest for the trees. And he hates the establishment. He hates it
so much he can't see straight, and definitely cannot talk about them
without spewing exaggerated and attention getting words.

So would he be effective if elected. IMO, no. I would respect Nadar
much more if he ran for a local government position first. If he
succeeded there, then run for State office. Then run for National
office. That would show me he can be effective. But by jumping right
to running for President, he indicates to me he is only interested in
Press for his cause. That position is counterproductive for the
country in general (and his cause in particular), but he can't see
that.

Toad has never shown any ability to work within the UPA infrastructure
effectively (and he would probably say he never wants to). Similar to
Nadar who has never shown the ability to work within any large party
structure. People with these personalities seem to need attention and
a cause. Take away the attention and a cause, and they will try to
find them wherever they can. One indication of this is the number of
rsd posts by Toad. He has had the most posts on rsd every month this
year except for Mike Gerics (who disappeared after June, I think
because rsd banned him for some reason).
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #914 is a reply to message #907] Mon, 29 September 2008 16:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 29, 7:35 pm, Joe Seidler <j...@seidler.com> wrote:
> I think we may be getting to the root of how Toad thinks. Below is a
> comment I made followed by his reply:
>
> JOE:
>
> >>Every time his party loses an election in NC, I guess he feels he is not being represented?
>
> TOAD:
>
> > but theres only one party in ultimate(in the upa admin anyways) and
> > thats the spirit zealot party.  if anything i'm like ralph nadar
> > trying to establish a third (or in our case, 2nd) party.  and where
> > ralphs legacy might be standardizing seatbelts in cars, mine will be
> > standardizing officials in ultimate.
>
> So Toad believes it's him against the UPA world.


no, i believe its me and the silent majority against the upa ADMIN
world......i like to call us leber-als.......kinda like liberals in
that we dont get too caught up in the politricks of the upa admin
(well, i do) and we are all liberal in the sence that we tolerate and
allow ultimate to be "governed" under a variety of options.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---



It's a dictatorship.
> The elections for Board members are rigged.

they might be. i doubt any of em want me to be elected and they are
the ones counting the votes. I mean, if they cant be trusted with our
money why should we trust em with the votes.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---



And he must save us from
> the evil dictator.

well theres no savin you spirit zealots.....you guys are ALL ate up,
but its also the sport i'm tryin to save here (or better yet liberate/
LEBER-ATE).....so yea, thats about right
---------------------------------------------



Nadar against the big parties. And for once, I
> totally agree with him. He is like Nadar; very outspoken against
> anything the establishment does. Yes, Nadar probably can tilt a close
> election when he runs and gets a few percentage points of the vote,
> and yes the result is exactly opposite what Nadar stands for (that is,
> he helps get the GOP candidate elected).

from what he says, there isnt all that much difference between the
dems and repubs, so...... vod last fridays hbo "real time" and check
him out.
----------------------------------------------------------



IMO Nadar is a kook who has
> done good things for consumers but is just so mixed up he can't see
> the forest for the trees.


aint nadar your man punto???
------------------------------------------------------------ ---


And he hates the establishment. He hates it
> so much he can't see straight, and definitely cannot talk about them
> without spewing exaggerated and attention getting words.


whats not to hate. its much like the upa admin.
------------------------------------------------------------ -
>
> So would he be effective if elected. IMO, no. I would respect Nadar
> much more if he ran for a local government position first. If he
> succeeded there, then run for State office. Then run for National
> office. That would show me he can be effective. But by jumping right
> to running for President, he indicates to me he is only interested in
> Press for his cause. That position is counterproductive for the
> country in general (and his cause in particular), but he can't see
> that.

you just have all the answers there, dont ya joe.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Toad has never shown any ability to work within the UPA infrastructure


i ran college nationals back in 89'(anybody remember that prick frank
revi)
------------------------------------------------------------ -
> effectively (and he would probably say he never wants to).

its not a matter of what i want to do, its a matter of what i have to
do.
---------------------------------------------------



Similar to
> Nadar who has never shown the ability to work within any large party
> structure. People with these personalities seem to need attention and
> a cause. Take away the attention and a cause, and they will try to
> find them wherever they can.

so were are both subversives is what you are saying?
----------------------------------------------------



One indication of this is the number of
> rsd posts by Toad. He has had the most posts on rsd every month this
> year except for Mike Gerics (who disappeared after June, I think
> because rsd banned him for some reason).

just campaignin joe......whats your excuse.
Re: NC SECT. POLL RESULTS (TEASER) [message #920 is a reply to message #897] Mon, 29 September 2008 17:28 Go to previous message
MrPinto
Messages: 601
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 29, 3:41 pm, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:
> like swill said, "dont mistake tolerance for support".

Don't mistake people paying you money for "tolerance."

>  Where's the coercion here?  Anyone can vote that
> > wants to.  Anyone can fill out the proffered surveys that wants to.
> > Decisions are, as always, made by those who show up.
>
> in the recreation industry getting less than 10% feedback on a wants
> and needs assessment dosent bode well for the administration.  but
> since that is to their benefit, they dont have a problem with it.

10% feedback is fucking awesome for a volunteer survey. Most
businesses would be stoked to see a tenth of that.

> > Parties are useful for expedience in large voting bodies.  They're
> > useful for signaling when the constituency is so large that voters
> > don't know the potential representatives.  Beyond that, they're kind
> > of a hassle since party platforms necessarily combine disparate
> > positions under one grouping.  Why, for instance are the "big
> > military" and "Christian fundamentalist" groups allied in our system?
>
> same reason the spirit zealots are.......they are insane and power
> hungry.

Everyone's insane and power hungry, if they weren't, there wouldn't be
politics to begin with. Since joining a party restricts your issue
freedom (you've gotta toe the line enough that you don't lose your
affiliation), you're giving up power. Strong party affiliation is
"expensive" in that it requires a lot of compromise and political
capital. You don't do it unless you have to, and those forces just
aren't there for a small group that's elected by a larger but still
relatively small group, and that doesn't meet very often.

> > Silly Toad, everyone knows that Nader's legacy was Dubya's election!
>
> not according to ralph, HE says it was the seatbelts......now it might
> be establishing a third party that can "join the debates".


Lolz. Ralph says lots of things (including but not limited to his
failure to grok Duverger). I wonder what Bush thinks his legacy is...
=)

~p
Previous Topic:What's so Ultimate about Ultimate Frisbee?
Next Topic:TCT 2008
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Feb 26 23:43:28 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.0RC2.
Copyright ©2001-2009 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software