Re: Systems of Voting: there is a bug there? (I/II)

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

At 13:45 -0600 10-12-2005, Bruce Eggum wrote:
>Dear Antonio
>
>You said: (ant)
>Thanks, Leopoldo. You gave me a concise report of what the
>existing "System of Voting" are.  But this goes a bit off-topic.
>The topic was, in my intention, opening a discussion about the
>why and the how the current voting system -- whichever it
>may be -- could, or should, be changed.
>
>Obviousley this discussion does NOT belong on WDDM list.
>Please feel free to post it on CICDD if you choose to continue.
>Bruce
>

Bruce,

Obviously, the above is your personal opinion only,

not that of the list. At least, it is not mine.  Well then?

Therefore, feel free not to reply to posts which you

consider off-topic, if you like, and most of all, stop

please addressing me personally.

Rather, if you wanted to keep on with the discussion

about an quite administrative topic that belongs to the

WDDM list, please do honestly reply to the post below

(which I attach for your commodity.)

-------------------------------- fwd ------------------------------

> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:01:36 +0100
> To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
> Subject: Towards un-muddling WDDM's waters
> Cc: cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com, "M. Kolar"
> <wddm(at)mkolar.org>
>
> Dear Mirek, and democrat colleaguess
>
> as you know, the world-wide-democracy.net domain
> is about one year old, which means its yearly Internet
> registration should expire these days.  Let me take the
> occasion for a brief report of the administration history
> of WDDM.
>
> WDDM has born at the Athens' 2.nd CICDD meeting,
> thanks to George Sagi's U.S.# 100 for its international
> registration. (G.S. also drafted the WDDM Founding
> Documents on behalf of its members)
>
> After that, the WDDM registration was up for three
> years over thanks to its web master Pino Strano (who
> but beard the registering expense and the secretariat
> task for pure power-seeking purposes).
>
> To date, the WDDM structure -- for what it is -- is
> up thanks to you Mirek, and your terrific effort as the
> WDDM web master and "admin".
>
>
> Well now:
> no problem for the WDDM domain registration fees,
> thanks to antonio (myself) who made a donation for
> that fee. No problem also for covering the registration
> fee of the next year 2006, because my donation has
> been calculated to cover a two years registration fee.
>
> (Clearly, I'm speaking of  the financial administration
> only. All of us have to thank each other for supporting
> WDDM with the mostly valuable contribution of our
> sincere DD ideas, and the spent time).
>
> But the problem is now, I won't made any further
> donation for the expiring of WDDM domain on 2007.
> Therefore, Mirek and members, we have one year for
> deciding how to keep on with the WDDM domain and
> its organization and administration mastering alive.
>
> As for my humble opinion, it is just us WDDM members
> who have to contribute with a membership fee for every
> WDDM vital necessity, so to keep it on being our own
> sovereign democratic property. I'm not in favour of
> individual donations, or, far worse, for funding offered
> by the corporate companies (as once Jiri Polak and
> Mike Gravel tried to do).  Anyway:
>
> Let's hope us WDDM members will land finally and
> take into account the pragmatic necessities of real
> Democracy. Let me recommend this to:
>
> - the innocent democrat, who thinks of Democracy it
> is built as soon as a sound DD Constitution is built.
> He seems to ignore that in order to build a sound DD
> Constitution the DD (Constitution) builders shall be
> built prior, and the DD users shall be built as well.
>
> - the axiomatic scientist, who took our DD discussion
> rooms as his own pit, to spam to, aiming to self-promote
> his elitist dogmas.
>
> - the administration power-seeker, who urges us to
> turn our World Wide Democracy into a monopoly of
> bureaucracy.
>
> See original quotes below.
>
>
> Regards,
> antonio
>
> -------------------- original quotes --------------------
>
> At 14:38 -0500 6-12-2005, John Baker wrote:
> > Yes but..
> >
> > I thought this was a DD advocacy forum. Discussing
> > NMT as a prerequisite for DD seems off-topic to me.
> > Personally,  I believe the majority can be trusted more
> > than a minority. This means I am more afraid of anything
> > less than a democractic decision.
> >
> > I do not know what the best decision is for the whole,
> > therefore I ask each individual for their honest opinion.
> > The only way to do that is via a democratic vote.
> > Therefore, I support DD, unequivacably. I ave no doubt
> > that DD is better for everyone as a whole for this reason
> > and therefore I am not concerned about NMT.
> >
> > Once a global DD constitution is established I believe
> > NMT will take care of itself.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > JB
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 20:34 +0100 7-12-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote:
> >  > John Baker wrote:
> > >  > 
> >
> >  > > After glancing at Georges
> > site, it seems to me to be
> >  > > a play for recognition. Notice how every page of
> > the
> >  > > site is prefaced by his name.
> > =========================================================
> > It's not my site, but that of an English scientist and
> > philosopher Evans who for some reason, rightly or wrongly,
> > esteems me and my writings and asked me for permission
> > to collect them in a part of his "Academy" devoted to me
> > and edited by him the way he judged best.
> > Georges.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 15:01 -0600 6-12-2005, Bruce Eggum wrote:
> > Dear John and Others
> >
> > Antonio has again muddied the waters so
> > discussion
> > gets sidetracked and people leave the
> > lists and resign.
> >
> > I see he has again copied to WDDM which
> > is an
> > administrative list. I will send there
> > with this reply
> > but it is not for this type discussion. 
> > The CICDD
> > list is open so unless members police
> > themselves
> > about ethics, Antonio can rave on in that
> > list.
> >
> > We do not need Antonio "acronym's"
> > with his own
> > perverse meanings which are not
> > universally known.
> > People have enough problem with language
> > without
> > adding new unknowns.
>
>
> (remaining Bruce's deleted)