You're an enigma, Horrace. Thirty minutes before posting this message to me you posted a reply that was actually responsive about some of the questions I've asked and included some of your concerns with the problems. Specific concerns. We even found a couple of things to agree on.
Then you post this mess in response to a question I asked someone else. Interesting to say the least.
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Really nothing however if you wish to change something then do so with demonstrating the actual rules that you wish to be changed.
Demonstrate some knowledge of the reasons that things are being done which are not to your liking. Demonstrate what rule/s has/have to be changed to make things different. Demonstrate HOW things might get changed.
When you demonstrate that you really know the applicable current rules, understand their use in at least some recent history, and you know what is required to make changes, Bylaws, Standing Rules, other, etc., then maybe you just MIGHT gain some credibility reference your subject other than creating a diversion.
So, one has to be an expert before asking questions and making comments about what may be wrong with a particular process or procedure? Is that what you're saying? I don't think that's the case.
Horrace, I don't claim to be an expert or know it all on the bylaws and rules of the AMA. I do think that I know WAY more than the typical member, and more than most that have been posting here. Most....not all. Interestingly enough more than one indivdual here has acccused me of being a "plant" because I knew too MUCH. I think I know enough to ask reasonable questions, and to suggest POSSIBLE solutions. You'll note that when I talk about the bylaws it's typically with a "my understanding is"........and a .........."correct me if I'm wrong" comment. What I'm trying to do is make sure that my understanding is correct, and utilize the knowledge of others where it's not. That's not a flaw.
My questions here have been credible. My responses have been credible.
The only thing here that ISN'T credible is your continuing claim that this is just a diversion of some sort. Diversion from WHAT? Election related threads that haven't been active in a week or more? None have been. Besides this thread, the only active threads in the past week are "AMA CD Deal", KE's "Is it OkeyDokey to Not Vote in an AMA Election" and "EC Meeting Sat 10-25-08" Are you claiming I'm creating a diversion from those? If not then just what? You're comment really makes no sense whatsoever.
I remember that you came on to me very strongly all about HOW I plan to go about my stated objectives as DVP. Well, Mr. Mitchell, it's your turn to tell me! [>:] BTW, To me this symbol is more of a "Gotcha" than any other within the selections.
So now you're playing "gotcha" because I haven't posted what I plan to do to correct issues I see with AMA's nominating procedures? I've indicated what I think is wrong, and why (something you actually agree with me about), and a suggestion as to what should replace it. A suggestion, Horrace...and invited comments. Personally, I can't see you inviting comments from much of anyone, particularly an audience that may not agree with you.
Horrace, I'm not running for EVP. You are. (EVP, not DVP)[>:] Gotcha. Gee that was fun!
If I was a candidate for EVP then you'd be right to expect some detailed plans on what I might want to accomplish if elected. But I'm not. All I wanted to do was bring up something that I think is a issue and discuss it in a rational manner. That doesn't seem to be something that you're able to do. Certainly not on a consistent basis.