ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
Without the personal pokes and unsubstantiated "radical approach" junk, we may have some grounds for a discussion here;
You are fully aware of our previous conversations on the very same subject on "other" sites, if you truly want to discuss this matter, lets not pretend those conversations never happened.
ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
How about, "effective majority"?
not sure I get that, but the suggestion is that because of a 43% of members reside in one geographical region, their lead should be followed?
Wrong. First, you are making many assumptions that are most likely untrue. It is not a simple question of the 43% in perfect agreement, leading the 53% geographically dispersed lining up on the opposite side of the fence. This is an oversimplification of the matter. What I was alluding to, is simply a fact that, when a larger number are focused in an area that imposes fewer geographical boundaries, they tend to meet more often, and establish common grounds for effecting their approachs. I'm not making moral or philosophical judgements, simply stating a fact, please refrain from placing a spin on this simple fact.
ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
Regardless, I have to agree with allowing the majority to decide if "status quo" is the future. I personally believe "status quo" is maintained through apathy of the majority and that open debate of political issues and getting more information to the true majority is the way to eventually motivate the silent majority to effect some change.
"status quo" is a poor definition. I think you need to enlighten us as to your cause. Sticking my neck out, I believe (from our previous conversations) you're referrring to MAAC's support (especially financially) of competition. I would like to remind you that MAAC was established "promote competition". In this light, "status quo" to me, means doing what the organization was established to do. I continue to fail to comprehend your issue with this.....
ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
... besides, the radical ideas are the funnest to debate.
And the quickest way to turn people off of an organization.[>:]
[/quote]