GGC2005 - Pre-Vote Announcement!!!

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:12:09 -0700, John Szeto
wrote:

Like I said before, enough said. That's why I have not been posting on R.T.C.
for the past year or so anymore because of all the flame wars.

Yes, the cut your soul in halves they are so vitriolic and relevant to
real world crises.

I certainly understand you and anyone else that allows themselves to
become so emotionally invested in the opinions of people you will may
never meet.

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:01:01 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
wrote:

That was discussed and we decided to ID the TA's.

The reasoning being that if the vote went to a TA that was unpopular,
then those that voted wouldn't book when the time came. Whether that
is totally right or wrong doesn't matter, it was the overall feeling of
the committee that it was certainly a possibility.

Translation:

GCC Committee scared ****less I would bid and win. And if I would
have, I would have.

In article , Cruising
Chrissy wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:01:01 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
wrote:

That was discussed and we decided to ID the TA's.

The reasoning being that if the vote went to a TA that was unpopular,
then those that voted wouldn't book when the time came. Whether that
is totally right or wrong doesn't matter, it was the overall feeling of
the committee that it was certainly a possibility.

Translation:

GCC Committee scared ****less I would bid and win. And if I would
have, I would have.

LOL, you assume someone on the committee actually gives a crap about
you one way or another!

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:17:59 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
wrote:

I guess the fact that a simple error was made in not posting rfb change
isn't an option to consider.

Well, Lloyd, you and I may not agree but I don't think you are trying
to be dishonest.

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:09:13 GMT, "Tom & Linda"
wrote:

In fact, it seems nobody did, and Lloyd was ultimately asked and then said
yes.

Lloyd and I have teased each other over the years, but I will give him full
credit for what he's doing.

He inherited a concept that was spiriling into problems. It had gotten to
the point where few TA were even interested. Most likely because the
committees in the past were made up of people who were very astute to TA
pricing and practices. They probably made it difficult for a TA to make any
money on the group.

Add to that the bickering that has gone on over the years for "various"
reasons.

Lloyd is taking a different stab at it. He's letting the people vote. He's
not forcing anyone to pick a TA that they're not comfortable with. Nor is
he forcing anyone to go.

I give Lloyd an "Atta Boy" for trying.

Yeah, I agree. He was screwed from the get-go and knew it.

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:01:29 GMT, "Jean O'Boyle"
wrote:

Now that everyone has voiced their opinions and all has been brought out on
the table, I recommend that we mend all hard feelings and get on with the
voting as soon as possible.. The success of a fun filled GGC depends on it..

Lloyd and his committee did what they thought best at the time...that is a
whole lot more than those who did not offer to volunteer, myself included,
did. If anyone thinks that they can do better, PLEASE volunteer next
year!!!.

So let's stop the bickering and get on with the next step!

--Jean,~~ready to vote...

Did you notice how everyone ignored your sophomoric attempt to play
Head Cheerleader?

I sure did.

Go stick a few new batteries in that dildo of yours and retreat, in
same, to the back of your closet.

On 1 Jun 2004 14:24:16 -0700, (Reef
Fish) wrote:

So how many times has Karen Wheelock posted on rtc?


Sue ---found no posts from Google Groups

I confirm that finding. Of course s/he could have posted under
any of the anonymous posting agents or under the name "Howie"!
LOL LOL LOL LOL ... or Sunny ... LOL LOL LOL.

-- Bob.

I am Karen Wheelock.

There.

Excellent point, Lloyd.

Eileen

Lloyd Parsons wrote:

LOL, you assume someone on the committee actually gives a crap about
you one way or another!

In article , Cruising
Chrissy wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:17:59 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
wrote:

I guess the fact that a simple error was made in not posting rfb change
isn't an option to consider.

Well, Lloyd, you and I may not agree but I don't think you are trying
to be dishonest.

Thanks for that. It is appreciated.

I know that the committee and I were trying to make the best of what
was looking pretty grim. A few days before we announced the rfb's were
ready, I wouldn't have bet on more than one TA bidding.

After we responded to the few requests we did get, I was almost sure
that it would be a max of 2. I literally was tickled pink when 2 that
I had not expected popped up and provided bids.

And you are right, we don't always agree, but that is not necessarily a
bad thing.

Lloyd

Had not expected? They were personally invited by the committee. How could
you not have expected them, when the rules were changed so they could in
fact bid?

Remember, Tulsans take care of people from Tulsa.

Give it a rest, the rules were changed so agent friends of the committee
could be taken care of, it's already been admitted here.





"Lloyd Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article , Cruising
Chrissy wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:17:59 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
wrote:

I guess the fact that a simple error was made in not posting rfb change
isn't an option to consider.

Well, Lloyd, you and I may not agree but I don't think you are trying
to be dishonest.

Thanks for that. It is appreciated.

I know that the committee and I were trying to make the best of what
was looking pretty grim. A few days before we announced the rfb's were
ready, I wouldn't have bet on more than one TA bidding.

After we responded to the few requests we did get, I was almost sure
that it would be a max of 2. I literally was tickled pink when 2 that
I had not expected popped up and provided bids.

And you are right, we don't always agree, but that is not necessarily a
bad thing.

Lloyd