Bob Seaborn wrote to Robert Bashe on Sunday June 06 2004 at 10:47:

RB>> So let me just understand this correctly... you're saying that Ward
RB>> organized a ZCC vote to remove Bob Satti from the IC office, and that
RB>> when the votes were counted, a majority was in favor of his removal.
RB>> Then Ward was elected. Is that right?

BS> YES!

You contradict yourself in the next paragraph.

RB>> My information, naturally not first-hand, was that Bob Satti
RB>> eventually resigned of his own accord, whether under pressure or not,
RB>> but of his

BS> NOT true! Satti was effectively forced out.

"effectively forced out" is not equivalent to "voted out of
office by the ZCC".

BS> The final blow came when David Moufarrage, newly elected ZC1, stated
BS> that he supported Ward for IC...

Which is _not_ equivalent to a vote of the ZCC removing Bob Satti from office.

RB>> own accord, and was _not_ removed by a vote of the ZCC and certainly
RB>> not by one organized by Ward Dossche. _Then_ Ward was elected IC. Are
RB>> you saying that's not true?

BS> Ward organized the whole process to attempt removal of Bob Satti and
BS> become IC himself. Ward called for the election process, and
BS> supervised it.

But you don't answer the question. And from your above comments it's clear
that there was actually no ZCC vote to remove Bob Satti from office,
however much Ward may have tried to get him to step down and remove support
for him.

RB>> If you reply that the first paragraph is true and the second isn't,
RB>> that would mean that Bob Satti was recalled by exactly the same
RB>> procedure as you used this time around to recall Ward. And in that
RB>> case I wonder why

BS> Almost EXACTLY!

As you remark above, although you avoid a drect answer to the question,
there was actually no ZCC vote to remove Bob Satti from office. That was
the question I wanted answered.

[To Janis]
RB>> you haven't been saying this loud and clear everywhere people would
RB>> listen to you, since it's a vitally important point and would
RB>> seriously

BS> Because Janis was not present in any of the 'remove Bob Satti, make
BS> Ward Dossche IC" process.

Because Janis obviously is aware that there was, in fact, no ZCC vote to
remove Bob Satti from office, however much "something 'exactly
like'" that may now be claimed.

RB>> undercut Ward's argument that the vote was not policy compliant.

BS> Like I've repeatedly tried to tell you, the process to replace Satti
BS> with Dossche was the same as was used to replace Dossche with Malcom,
BS> the only difference being what I outlined already.

The "only difference", as you've made clear, being that there was
no ZCC vote to remove Bob Satti from office.

RB>> On the other hand, if my second-hand information isn't all that
RB>> inaccurate and the situation really was as described, it would
RB>> undercut _your_ position that the vote was policy compliant.

Which, in fact, now appears to be the case.

BS> I am not claiming compliancy or not, but Ward became IC the same way
BS> he ceased being IC - by a vote of all the ZC's.

That is _not_ the same as a ZCC vote to _remove_ Bob Satti from office. I
was asking about facts, not opinions.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613