>> >> Nothing Thom did persuaded the vote one way or the
>> other.> What he did was chase the voters away.
>>
>> He did not chase anyone away. _If_ they left, what that
>> says to me to me is that the RCs had no interest in the
>> change; so much so that they weren't willing to stick
>> around and vote.

> They were willing to vote on the "Short" proposal.

You really have no idea what they were willing to do or not do, Michiel.
You are only trying to describe a situation that didn't exist to fit your
own agenda in discrediting Thom.  Gladly there are enough people here that
were involved in the situation and who know the truth of what happened. It
doesn't work.

>> > Bullshit.
>> A shame you resort to that kind of language...

> I am sorry. I have had this term thrown at me so often by native English
>speakers who claim to be experts in the language and who insist that we should
>regard each other's wishes with respect to abusive language that I momentarily
> forgot that this is not proper language. My apologies.

Thank you.

>> though it does speak volumes.
> No, it just illustrates that in dealing with tar one can not help getting
> dirty.

Actually I think it relates more to the fact that you are frustrated in how
a number of your theories are received.  When you get frustrated that seems
to be how you react to things.

>> > He was one of the handfull that was crying for his replacement.
>> No, he was one of MANY that were not crying, but demanding
>> that an election for IC be held.
> I know a buddy-buddy situation when I see one Janis.

Hmm.. Michiel  that is the impression I get from your defense of Ward.  You
are projecting.  The fact that Thom has nothing to do with the ZCC or the
vote of the ZCC makes that quite clear.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag-5