ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Mitchell, have you ever tried reading the AMA Bylaws? Your first post in this thread evidences you don't have a clue about them. In addition you obviously have not read or comprehended what I answered to you in "Why I cannot support Mark Smith for AMA Ex. VP. - 10/13/2008 1:12:21 PM Post #168"
{break}
In the above quoted post, you also lend evidence to the fact you don't read replies to your own posts or you have a very short memory. For example, this one concerning run-offs.
Gee, Horrace....thanks for your reasoned and thoughtful reply.
Do you have any comments about changes that you think would be appropriate in the nominating and election process? If so, then I think you could add to this discussion. I suspect that we share some concerns here, particularly about the nominating process. You've been personally affected by the current nominating process, and while I don't want this to degenerate into a rant about one particular instance, I'd honestly like to hear what you think could be done to improve the way nominations are handled, and the way the ballot is produced. The fact that I probably would have agreed with the final result of the 2007 Nominating Committee re the Presidential ballot doesn't mean that I think the process is appropriate. To the contrary, as I've stated.
Now, if you prefer to just rant about what you think I may or may not know or understand or remember then perhaps you could start a thread for that discussion so this one can remain on topic. I'm sure you could get a few others to join you.
Now, Mitchell, if you wish to lead a discussion in a regulated topic, may I suggest you just might be somewhat more effective if you knew those regulations concerning your chosen topic.
I'm not trying to "lead" a discussion here, Horrace. Just promote one on a topic that I believe is both valid and timely. And at the risk of driving this off topic myself, I'll ask if you think your comments on the standing rules and the Marketing Committee in a previous message/topic is an example of what you are getting at in the quote above.
