>
 >RB>> So let me just understand this correctly... you're saying that
 > WardRB>> 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.

      Not in the least, you're apparently misreading or misunderstanding me.

 >
 >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".


      Yes it is, especially if you take Ward's position that the IC must
instigate the vote process.  Satti, as IC, did NOT call for any vote
process to remove himself as IC, *NOR* did he resign.  Also he did NOT
whine, complain, or twist interpretation of policy to remain as IC!  Unlike
what recently happened.

 >
 >BS> The final blow came when David Moufarrage, newly elected ZC1,
 > statedBS> that he supported Ward for IC...
 >
 > Which is _not_ equivalent to a vote of the ZCC removing Bob Satti from
 > office.

      Sure is, Moufarrage stated such as a vote in the ZCC echo.  Sorry, I
don't remember the exact wording, but it was entirely clear that it was
indeed a vote.

 >
 >RB>> own accord, and was _not_ removed by a vote of the ZCC and
 > certainlyRB>> 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
 > andBS> 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.


      But, there WAS a vote, albeit not in any formal process started by the
then-IC.

 >
 >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.


      I don't understand why you keep misunderstanding what I'm telling you.

      The following is not necessarily in chronological order, but it all
happened in close order;


      1) Ward started making noises about replacing Satti.

      2) Ward called for a vote to replace Satti with himself.

      3) Ward started ZCC-PUBLIC to crosspost all messages from ZCC, with the
exception of any originated by Satti.

      4) 3 votes were posted, including Ward's, that Ward was preferred over
Satti as IC.

      5) Moufarrage (ZC1) shortly after voted to also support Ward over Satti.

      6) that made 4 votes out of 6 total supporting Ward, the next nodelist
showed Ward as IC, not Satti.

      7) Satti neither said or did anything to either influence the vote, nor
to retain the IC position.


      Does this better explain matters in a way that you understand?  Do you
see the similarity between Ward ousting Satti and Ward being ousted himself?

 >
 > [To Janis]
 >RB>> you haven't been saying this loud and clear everywhere people
 > wouldRB>> 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.

      How could Janis be directly aware of that?  She didn't have access to
ZCC at the time, while I was (with permission, I might add).  I have no
idea if she has discussed this matter with Bob Satti or not.

 >
 >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
 > SattiBS> 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.


      NO, the only difference is that while Janis may have instigated the
removal of Ward, she did NOT propose to replace him with herself, which was
what Ward did with Satti.  That, plus the fact that Satti did nothing to
retain the IC position, is the difference.

 >
 >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
 > wayBS> 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.


      And I'm repeatedly telling you what went on, you don't seem to be
listening, or understanding what I'm telling you.

      Watch my lipe:  THERE WAS A VOTE!

      Enough is enough, the topic is beaten to death.  I give up trying to
tell you what actually went on.

      You wish further information, try contacting Bob Satti directly, just
maybe he might answer you.

--- GEcho/32 & IM 2.50