Pricelessware Simplification

[Mike Andrade]

Oh, my mistake, I see now that you are a scholar and a gentleman.
Correct.

Bugger off.

I knew you had your face in Susan's ass...now your thinking of anal
sex.

 

[TedK]

Neither, Susan, and as I said, no criticism of your work was intended.
Just trying to suggest possible labour saving improvements.

I apologize for lumping you in with John F. (who posted with malice
aforethought). IMO however your suggestions display a lack of
understanding of the work that must be done. . .

The present process is:

1. post new/revised program descriptions [newsgroup participants]

2. post ONE list of eligible programs [point person]

3. nominate/second programs that are on the list [newsgroup participants]

4. post ONE ballot (list of programs that were nominated and seconded)
[pooint person]

5. cast ballots [newgroup participants]

6. count the ballots, select preliminary Pricelessware List [point person]

7. discussion, final selection [newsgroup participants]

Posting single lists for nominations/voting makes the tracking process
much easier than it used to be. Your "simplification" seems to call for
a return to chaos. Your proposal ignores the elephant in the bedroom -
the task of preparing/checking/revising program description. That's the
issue that must be addressed and resolved.


Susan

Susan, you do one helluva of a job. I for one, wouldn't begin to think
about trying to do it.

The difficulty of organizing and maintaining the programs list is, to
me, somewhat mind-boggling.

I think the vast majority of us appreciate what your contribution is.
The support that you have makes it unneccesary to make testy -- even if
justified -- replies to some of your critics.

Ted

 

[hoist]

I knew you had your face in Susan's ass...now your thinking of anal
sex.

yawn

Try being original some time in your life. I'm just a long time lurker &
occasional poster. I don't know Susan and she doesn't know me.

Little shits like you offend me and sometimes I decide to say so.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:21:14 -0400, Susan Bugher

Would you like to explain your thinking behind the assumption that
John, a regular poster to the group, posted with malice aforethought ?

Don't expect a sensible reply. It is much easier for her to get
sympathy if she pretends that she is being persecuted.

It usually works pretty well for her.