Glotmorf on Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:29:29 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Nweek 60 Ballot

On 28 Mar 2004 at 12:19, SkArcher wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 03:15:22 -0500, Glotmorf <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> Proposal 1830/0: Not Again! (SkArcher)
> >
> > I like thith...I really do.  It meanth thelved propothalth
> > only get rethubmitted if thomeone really wanth them to be.  No
> > free thoth, no thneaking thomething in when people have
> > forgotten about it, no making free work for Dave while
> > thomething waith to die of neglect.
> >
> > My only conthern (athide from having voted thelve on every
> > propothal thuth far) is, if thomeone beath a lame horthe over
> > three nweekth, thould e be penalithed for a failure?  Tho
> > that, not only doeth he have to want to rethubmit it, he altho
> > hath to make it better?
> >
> > I vote thelve.
> Can I have a version with less flying spittle please?

Sorry...the lisp goes with the scarf.

What I said was..."if someone beats a lame horse over three 
nweeks, should e be penalized for a failure?  So that, not 
only does he have to want to resubmit it, he also has to make 
it better?"

In other words, if someone is gonna stick the same tired old 
proposal in my face for three nweeks, without making it good 
enough for me to actually want to vote for it, I want em to 
get slapped with the failure penalty, so that e's induced to 
do more with a shelved-prop slot than annoy me.


The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.

spoon-discuss mailing list