Quick Vote, Shoddy Count??? Not so!

[Jon Ford]

Jack, you present some good arguments for keeping our list "exclusive," but 
we have had some outsiders before who were "sponsored" by a couple of 
current members  (as Don was vouched for by my sister and Frances, both of 
whom have known him quite awhile). I have always supported this kind of 
spnsorship, because it can create some new ways of seeing things. Some  
sponsored members have lost interest, some were later banned by mutual 
consent of the group. The real reason Don was removed was because of his 
political stance, and because he disagreed with Mike a few times and sent a 
couple of long posts.  I  have tried to put this to a vote, and the only 
people who would clearly vote against Laird were you, Karen, Connie, and 
Mike.That's four. Bob never voted against,  and Wayne never did. I'm 
counting Bob as a for, because of his repeated postings for tolerance of 
different viewpoints. I'm for, Harry's for, Mary Jane Carol in Folsom is 
for, Fontaine is for, Judy Herr is for ( and I'm  sure she could probably 
convince her husband Monte, so they are two ), Roger is clearly for, Tary is 
for, Stephanie is for, Dian is for, Jim Balbauf is for, Ewie is for, and 
Steve Porterfield is for.. That's 15 against four: So,a gang of four members 
decides-- is this democracy? If only four people support a rigid policy and 
desire to repress  a former member's speech, you think that's right, Jack? I 
think that's wrong.

Jon


>From: jaxon41 <jaxon41@austin.rr.com>
>To: ghetto ghetto <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
>Subject: Quick Vote, Shoddy Count
>Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 18:43:47 -0600
>
>Jon is mighty anxious to keep Don Laird on the List, announcing a
>three-to-one "for" vote and chastizing Mike for his undemocratic (read,
>dictatorial) methods.  Hey, last time I looked it was Bob, Karen, Connie &
>me--plus Mike--voting against allowing Don Laird access to our most private
>ramblings on the Condition of Mankind and the Universe in General.
>
>I have nothing PERSONAL against DL, and that's precisely why I don't think
>he should be on our List.  Most of the other folks I either know or 
>remember
>being at UT in the early Sixties, but not DL.  He, no doubt, is a nice guy 
>&
>it's probably my loss that I don't know who he is.  But that ain't the 
>point
>here, is it?  The point is that we must have parameters for who can get on
>the List and who can't.  Otherwise, let's just drop all barriers and let
>EVERYONE sign up--the whole world, including the FBI & Homeland Security!
>
>I've already gone through this "admission policy" thing with Mike--re Mack
>White, a cartoonist friend who expressed interest in being on the List--&
>Mike explained to me, in reasonable terms, why people that few of us
>ghettoites KNOW have to be excluded.  So now listers are expressing outrage
>that we're an elitist in-group that badly needs new blood, Don Laird being
>the case in point.
>
>This is nonsense.  There's lots of people who've been in Austin for several
>decades, who most of us know, and who would make interesting Listers 
>besides
>DL.  Yet they are not allowed to join; enuff is enuff--unless they're 
>people
>who are bonafide ghettoites and want back on, eg, Travis, Walli, Chet,
>Hersh, Ramsey, and others who gave up because of the sheer volume of 
>prattle
>on the screen each day.  Given a choice, I think most of us would prefer
>that these people subscribe rather than strangers like DL. Jon is his
>leading advocate, so I rest my case.  jaxon
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp