Quote:

Bottom line (IMO) no matter what the intent behind the rule was, if it was not worded so that intent is clear,then it needs to be revised. IF the original intent is not clear, which has been the case more than once, then that too needs to be clarified.

Quote:
And with that Gentlemen is Why I started all this debate to begin with.,,

Quote:
Q,, I knew that there was a problem with the rules for this contribution, in which  I raised so many hackles with., I have since withdrew the contribution entirely as I feel I have made my point, and what really infuriates me to no end, is when I submit a simple little contribution and I get immediate PM's from Skip who says to me;

"this is a LONG established Convention and YOU do not have the right or the authority to unilaterally change, you, like **omit**  try this kind o crap on a regular basis, and one reason why you get semi-hostile responses and should it be approved I will repair the damage and CALL you on it in my notes. "

Quote:
So lets ask others,, Have you received threatening PM's like this from others ???


I Have and it is always from one individual only... and you KNOW who that is......

Quote:
He did have a hand in writing them, a major hand.  But, too many people won't admit that openly, and when he says what the intent was, they disallow that as if he were so schmoo off the street.

Quote:
Terry:

I don't care if you like it ot not, this is NOT the first time you have discovered a loophole and tried to take advantage of it without consulting. The ONLY reason you finally came here is because of my PM, which was not threatening, I told you poinyt blank that you were wrong and I woud repair the damage done immediately upon approval, that's a promise and what I will always do. Ax I said this is not the FIRST time you have tried this stunt and I have called you on it EVERY time and if you try it in the future I will call you on it then as well.

Skip

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
He did have a hand in writing them, a major hand.  But, too many people won't admit that openly, and when he says what the intent was, they disallow that as if he were so schmoo off the street.

Rifter to the rescue! 

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

He did have a hand in writing them, a major hand.  But, too many people won't admit that openly, and when he says what the intent was, they disallow that as if he were so schmoo off the street.

The  issue comes up when the other people involved in writing the rules recall the "intent" as something different. Also keep in mind that sometimes what one persons intent was in writing the rules was not necessarily what the group had in mind, so they did not get what they wanted.

For the record Skip's "hand" was no larger or smaller than any of the other participants. The fact is many times he would stay out of a lot of the discussions, sitting back and watching. Not meant to be an attack at all. Hope it doesn't come accross that way. He freely admitted he was stayign out of a lot of the discussions.

If we were to go with whoever had more involvement gets to decide what the actual intent was it would be Andy He was present more than any of us, followed closely by AJ.* There were ther all the freggin time (with the occasional disapearance during Dr. Who Skip would be 3rd, followed by James. There were many who had input though.

*This is based on the archived chat transcripts I have and frequently review, not by my own memory.



Bottom line (IMO) no matter what the intent behind the rule was, if it was not worded so that intent is clear,then it needs to be revised. IF the original intent is not clear, which has been the case more than once, then that too needs to be clarified.