On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:48:27 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>I assume that the vote counter will resign.

You are free to assume whatever your little heart desires, but until
the full story is known, you're probably safer shutting the fuck up.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:22:37 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:48:27 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>I assume that the vote counter will resign.
>
>You are free to assume whatever your little heart desires, but until
>the full story is known, you're probably safer shutting the fuck up.

Well out of order geezer.

I voted and expected the result in a timely manner.

Pedt posted several weeks ago saying the result was imminent.

This has the stink of an Afgani election.

Start again or (preferably) drop it.

-- 
vic

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:11:41 +0100, Victor Meldrew 
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:22:37 +0100, .m  
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:48:27 +0100, jms 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I assume that the vote counter will resign.
>>
>>You are free to assume whatever your little heart desires, but until
>>the full story is known, you're probably safer shutting the fuck up.
>
>Well out of order geezer.
>
>I voted and expected the result in a timely manner.
>
>Pedt posted several weeks ago saying the result was imminent.
>
>This has the stink of an Afgani election.

Compared with the 2004 US presidential election debacle, the Afghan
election is a great example of a fine democratic process.  As Mao
famously said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".

>Start again or (preferably) drop it.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:11:41 +0100, Victor Meldrew 
wrote:

>Well out of order geezer.

Try not to confuse me with someone who cares what you think.

>I voted and expected the result in a timely manner.

I voted, and know that I haven't any clue as to what a 'timely manner'
would be.  If you want it quick, feel free to go pay Popularis to run
your own vote, or make use of www.strawpoll.org.uk - whatever you do,
it won't affect whether the group is created or not, that result will
come when UKV are happy with it - no amount of footstamping or
tantrums is going to change that.

>Pedt posted several weeks ago saying the result was imminent.

And nobody has proven to have heard anything from him since, which to
me - regardless of any vote - is actually quite concerning.  

So unless you know otherwise that he's just said "fuckit, canne be
bothered", I refer you to my suggestion to "jms".

>This has the stink of an Afgani election.

Yes, we're all colluding against you, and everyone else.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:36:43 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>Yes, we're all colluding against you, and everyone else.

Pedt was watching the vote carefully.

I seem to recall warnings against canvassing being issued to both
sides of the debate.

Will a replacement vote taker be as thorough?

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:10:10 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>>Yes, we're all colluding against you, and everyone else.
>
>Pedt was watching the vote carefully.

I would fully expect all of UKV would have been watching, very
carefully.  Organisationally they seem very formal, structured and
professional.

>I seem to recall warnings against canvassing being issued to both
>sides of the debate.
>
>Will a replacement vote taker be as thorough?

My 'personal' opinion (based upon my dealings with UKV whilst I've
been on the Committee) is that they're very diligent.  Jon has said,
however, that he'll do a quick 'review' in order to get a basic
result.  I'm more than convinced that this will prove to be accurate
so far as regards getting a reliable conclusion - accepted by UKV peer
review.  I do not doubt that there are some 'complexities' in this
particular vote though, and it may well be the case that a degree of
ambiguity is allowed, provided the overall balance of 'easily
validated' votes demonstrates a majority 'one way or the other', that
is unaffected by the 'ambiguous' votes.

Like I said, this is my 'personal' opinion.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:22:37 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:48:27 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>I assume that the vote counter will resign.
>
>You are free to assume whatever your little heart desires, but until
>the full story is known, you're probably safer shutting the fuck up.


Well thank you Mother - (may I call you that?) for your considered
opinion.

You are right - I should not have said "assume"  - I should have said
"hope".

-- 
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:36:43 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:11:41 +0100, Victor Meldrew 
>wrote:
>
>>Well out of order geezer.
>
>Try not to confuse me with someone who cares what you think.
>
>>I voted and expected the result in a timely manner.
>
>I voted, and know that I haven't any clue as to what a 'timely manner'
>would be.  If you want it quick, feel free to go pay Popularis to run
>your own vote, or make use of www.strawpoll.org.uk - whatever you do,
>it won't affect whether the group is created or not, that result will
>come when UKV are happy with it - no amount of footstamping or
>tantrums is going to change that.
>
>>Pedt posted several weeks ago saying the result was imminent.
>
>And nobody has proven to have heard anything from him since, which to
>me - regardless of any vote - is actually quite concerning.  
>
>So unless you know otherwise that he's just said "fuckit, canne be
>bothered", I refer you to my suggestion to "jms".
>
>>This has the stink of an Afgani election.
>
>Yes, we're all colluding against you, and everyone else.
>


Has anyone told you that you are an arsehole?

-- 
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:31:26 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:10:10 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, we're all colluding against you, and everyone else.
>>
>>Pedt was watching the vote carefully.
>
>I would fully expect all of UKV would have been watching, very
>carefully.  Organisationally they seem very formal, structured and
>professional.
>
>>I seem to recall warnings against canvassing being issued to both
>>sides of the debate.
>>
>>Will a replacement vote taker be as thorough?
>
>My 'personal' opinion (based upon my dealings with UKV whilst I've
>been on the Committee) is that they're very diligent.  Jon has said,
>however, that he'll do a quick 'review' in order to get a basic
>result.  I'm more than convinced that this will prove to be accurate
>so far as regards getting a reliable conclusion - accepted by UKV peer
>review.  I do not doubt that there are some 'complexities' in this
>particular vote though, and it may well be the case that a degree of
>ambiguity is allowed, provided the overall balance of 'easily
>validated' votes demonstrates a majority 'one way or the other', that
>is unaffected by the 'ambiguous' votes.
>
>Like I said, this is my 'personal' opinion.


And what  makes you think anyone will be interested in that (to echo
your own comments)

Have I said - has anyone told you that you are an arsehole?

-- 
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:02:24 +0100, Judith M Smith 
 said:
> Has anyone told you that you are an arsehole?

No.  I've been called worse though, from many who, unlike you, are 
not total fuckwits.


--
-- 
Sent by mobile phone
I ignore posts with top-posted or untrimmed content

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:10:50 +0100, .m  wrote:

>
>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:02:24 +0100, Judith M Smith 
> said:
>> Has anyone told you that you are an arsehole?
>
>No.  I've been called worse though, from many who, unlike you, are 
>not total fuckwits.


Snigger.

So many people have called you worse than an arsehole - and you
actually  acknowledge that they are not fuckwits - so normal sane
people then.

I think I agree with them.

Sort of sums you up, and what people think of you, quite nicely.

Thanks for sharing it with us.

-- 
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:22:05 +0100, Judith M Smith
 wrote:

>So many people have called you worse than an arsehole - and you
>actually  acknowledge that they are not fuckwits - so normal sane
>people then.

Yep, far worse, from 'normal' people, who are not fuckwits, and often
people for whom I have developed a degree of respect, albeit not
necessarily always agreeing with what they say.  I doubt you will ever
be one of those people.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:47:52 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:22:05 +0100, Judith M Smith
> wrote:
>
>>So many people have called you worse than an arsehole - and you
>>actually  acknowledge that they are not fuckwits - so normal sane
>>people then.
>
>Yep, far worse, from 'normal' people, who are not fuckwits, and often
>people for whom I have developed a degree of respect, albeit not
>necessarily always agreeing with what they say.  I doubt you will ever
>be one of those people.


To be truthful - I could not give jack shit whether I gain your
respect or not; your immature response and advice  was quite
sufficient.

I would have thought that if you were a conscientious member of the
committee a response such as below would have been more appropriate.

"We are also concerned and we have tried to contact the vote taker in
order to ascertain ....... and we intend to take alternative action
......."

I suppose telling someone to shut the fuck up is just as good.

-- 
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:29:08 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>I would have thought that if you were a conscientious member of the
>committee a response such as below would have been more appropriate.

In case you missed it, I was writing specifically in a personal
capacity, and therefore have to issues with suggesting you fuck off.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:12:33 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:29:08 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>I would have thought that if you were a conscientious member of the
>>committee a response such as below would have been more appropriate.
>
>In case you missed it, I was writing specifically in a personal
>capacity, and therefore have to issues with suggesting you fuck off.

Indeed - I can see that you find the abusive response better than the
polite one when you are just being yourself.

Keep up the good work.

-- 
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:29:08 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>To be truthful - I could not give jack shit whether I gain your
>respect or not; your immature response and advice  was quite
>sufficient.

Odd.

I found the response from .m satisfactory, mature and polite, even if
I would have preferred the whole sorry saga of the new group to be
dropped.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:36:43 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:11:41 +0100, Victor Meldrew 
>wrote:
>
>>Well out of order geezer.
>
>Try not to confuse me with someone who cares what you think.

About as much as I care for your continued existence I expect.

>>I voted and expected the result in a timely manner.
>
>I voted, and know that I haven't any clue as to what a 'timely manner'
>would be. 

If the votetaker says the result is imminent ??

Get a grip or fuck off

-- 
vic