Blah blah blah bite me Mary A. Kelly wrote: > Right! you tell one me precisely one time I attacked IrelandGenWeb! I > strongly urge you to consider what you are saying. Yes I protested the ** > that we were subjected to for a month and stood up for the project, > protesting those weilding undue and unnecessary influence over us - while > you continued to defend the same during the entire time! > > I am not attacking everyone else - I am now down to attacking you since you > do clearly intend to make it a personal matter! > > You have done nothing but defend Nate and other WGW officals from the very > beginning - indeed without your input I would probably not have found it > necessary to send out a single message to this list! > > You bet your boots I wouldn't have blasted you baby! I am in such a hurry > to forget that I have ever heard of your (personally I mean!). I WANTED A > END TO THE ELECTION AS PROMISED! do you read English at all? read my lips! > I don't give a damn about you or your ego! I sat by and let you keep > shooting yourself in the foot - I knew that as soon as anyone read your > messages there was no way you could possibly win! You did not need any > help to lose the election - you could have done it all by yourself! > > One person out of 17 does not have a right to negate everyone elses > options! Or you should have had the courage to make such a request public > to ensure that everyone involved was advised - it was not YOUR election - > it was OUR election! if you were afraid of the results you should have > withdrawn - it is not our fault that you were afraid of incurring possible > comments. > > You told the group about your request to suppress, ONLY BECAUSE you were > contacted by someone about a possible public message that you may have sent > out requesting that stats not be released, but that none of us had read. > Only when the word grievance was mentioned by someone in a private message > to you did you put out your own message owning up to the fact that you > privately asked our 'impartial' election coordinator to repress a > democratic election result. > > We would not have ridiculed you - to the contrary - we would have been very > happy to finally have the bloody thing over. I have not once ridiculed you > (up to now) I find you do a wonderful job of doing so yourself! You > definitely do not need any help! > > You are the first to advise anyone to get a life, get on with things, don't > get our pants in a twist! You are the author of these suggestions - it > would be wonderful if you would do so yourself! > > I still stand for a united Ireland Genweb and thank god we have someone > level headed in charge at last - I don't envey him his job at all. I think > that many of us have proven that we have our own opinions and the right to > express them. We were also entitled to a democratic election - not one > solely on your terms Barb! > > You want to carry this to the list. fine! you have finally succeeded in > making me angry and causing me to respond in kind! > > I would request that you read your own first lines in your message below - > you are right - YOU are not god and YOU are not the world and YOU are not > IrelandGenWeb - and I DID NOT try to sabatoge our election - surely you had > to realize that doing so would only cause more disscention! So it is > entirely thanks to you that this nonsence continues - thanks a lot! > > I doubt few others of the 17 hosts were even aware that you had gone behind > their backs to ensure that the results of THEIR election were denied to > them by yourself. Talk about thing you are god (you did bring it up). > > Mary Kelly > Co. Tip > > At 12:56 AM 2/13/00 -0500, irishsun@ptdprolog.net wrote: > >Well Mary > > > >I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ASK PASCAL!!!! > >YOU ARE NOT GOD YOU ARE NOT THE WORLD AND YOU > >ARE NOT IRELANDGENWEB. > >If you truly cared about Irelandgenweb the way you claim then you > >would stop attacking it and everyone else. > > > > > >If Pascal chose to take my request to heart then he has every right > >to do so. What's wrong?? did I hit a nerve was I right you would have > >blasted me. Never mind don't answer that your answer below shows I am. > >Since day one you have taunted me with your needy liitle > >questions. How can I do this How can I do that. > > > >I made the request because as a candidate I felt it was a bad idea. > >I was right. I'm not taking anything personally > >you've shown me long ago that you have no > >legtimacy in your complaints. > > > >I told the group whatwas said so they would > >know who and why it was said. Since youa re > >the only one upset - oops sorry Maura is too - obviously > >no one else cares. So stop your foot stomping and get a life > > > > > > > > > >Mary A. Kelly wrote: > > > >> Barb: > >> > >> How dare you as a nominee standing in a democratic election presume that > >> you have the right to interfer with the election process. That is > >> outlandish! It is truly the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard > >> of! As an impartial party Pascal should not even have considered your > >> request or be bound by it! > >> > >> What true democrat? - a true democrat would insist on full disclosure - or > >> consider withdrawing from an election instead if they really were > >> interested in settling matters or worrying about what others may say. > >> > >> The people you are referring to on this list - I am speaking for myself - > >> have ONE INTEREST in mind - IrelandGenWeb. I am sorry if you must take > >> everything personally - if you are willing to dish it out, you should come > >> to grips with the fact that you have to be able to receive it back, without > >> having to stoop to name calling or silly inuendos when you are proven wrong > >> or run out of steam. > >> > >> The 'complainers' on this list had only one interest - IrelandGenWeb - and > >> ensuring that a rational, level headed person were finally appointed to > >> manage it! Instead, we are subjected to undue influence by 'whoever' from > >> behind the lines right up to the very last minute! > >> > >> Why should your request to 'supress' the results have any more weight than > >> our request for 'full disclosure' - some democracy! So one person out of > >> 17 over-rules the others! right!! > >> > >> Mary Kelly > >> Co. Tip > >> > >> At 12:32 AM 2/13/00 -0500, irishsun@ptdprolog.net wrote: > >> >hello and thank god it's over > >> >i am going to fix an error nate unfortunately made. > >> >i brought this to his attention. he was going to send > >> >an email - i said i would. > >> > > >> >pascal said he was going to make the votes public > >> >a true democrat at heart i asked him not to. > >> >my reasons were simple > >> >there are several people on this list who > >> >have found a need to bicker with others, making fun of > >> >them etc. i stated to pascal it would only cause more > >> >bickering and back stabbing. that message went to him in > >> >private from his public email. i purposefully deleted the igw address > >> >for several reasons: i didn't want more accusations on the list, > >> >and i didn't want more headaches from the fad 3. > >> > > >> >turns out i was right in my request. the complainers are making > >> >yet another grievance to the committee concerning the election > >> >which means igw is in yet another wonderful mess with wgw. > >> > > >> >wish i could stop this for ya.. but now the deed is in don's lap > >> >don are you reaaly going to make the complaint or will be the leader > >> >the majority hopes you'll be and put it behind us? > >> > > >> >good luck gang > >> > > >> >barb lavin > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >

Right! you tell one me precisely one time I attacked IrelandGenWeb! I strongly urge you to consider what you are saying. Yes I protested the ** that we were subjected to for a month and stood up for the project, protesting those weilding undue and unnecessary influence over us - while you continued to defend the same during the entire time! I am not attacking everyone else - I am now down to attacking you since you do clearly intend to make it a personal matter! You have done nothing but defend Nate and other WGW officals from the very beginning - indeed without your input I would probably not have found it necessary to send out a single message to this list! You bet your boots I wouldn't have blasted you baby! I am in such a hurry to forget that I have ever heard of your (personally I mean!). I WANTED A END TO THE ELECTION AS PROMISED! do you read English at all? read my lips! I don't give a damn about you or your ego! I sat by and let you keep shooting yourself in the foot - I knew that as soon as anyone read your messages there was no way you could possibly win! You did not need any help to lose the election - you could have done it all by yourself! One person out of 17 does not have a right to negate everyone elses options! Or you should have had the courage to make such a request public to ensure that everyone involved was advised - it was not YOUR election - it was OUR election! if you were afraid of the results you should have withdrawn - it is not our fault that you were afraid of incurring possible comments. You told the group about your request to suppress, ONLY BECAUSE you were contacted by someone about a possible public message that you may have sent out requesting that stats not be released, but that none of us had read. Only when the word grievance was mentioned by someone in a private message to you did you put out your own message owning up to the fact that you privately asked our 'impartial' election coordinator to repress a democratic election result. We would not have ridiculed you - to the contrary - we would have been very happy to finally have the bloody thing over. I have not once ridiculed you (up to now) I find you do a wonderful job of doing so yourself! You definitely do not need any help! You are the first to advise anyone to get a life, get on with things, don't get our pants in a twist! You are the author of these suggestions - it would be wonderful if you would do so yourself! I still stand for a united Ireland Genweb and thank god we have someone level headed in charge at last - I don't envey him his job at all. I think that many of us have proven that we have our own opinions and the right to express them. We were also entitled to a democratic election - not one solely on your terms Barb! You want to carry this to the list. fine! you have finally succeeded in making me angry and causing me to respond in kind! I would request that you read your own first lines in your message below - you are right - YOU are not god and YOU are not the world and YOU are not IrelandGenWeb - and I DID NOT try to sabatoge our election - surely you had to realize that doing so would only cause more disscention! So it is entirely thanks to you that this nonsence continues - thanks a lot! I doubt few others of the 17 hosts were even aware that you had gone behind their backs to ensure that the results of THEIR election were denied to them by yourself. Talk about thing you are god (you did bring it up). Mary Kelly Co. Tip At 12:56 AM 2/13/00 -0500, irishsun@ptdprolog.net wrote: >Well Mary > >I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ASK PASCAL!!!! >YOU ARE NOT GOD YOU ARE NOT THE WORLD AND YOU >ARE NOT IRELANDGENWEB. >If you truly cared about Irelandgenweb the way you claim then you >would stop attacking it and everyone else. > > >If Pascal chose to take my request to heart then he has every right >to do so. What's wrong?? did I hit a nerve was I right you would have >blasted me. Never mind don't answer that your answer below shows I am. >Since day one you have taunted me with your needy liitle >questions. How can I do this How can I do that. > >I made the request because as a candidate I felt it was a bad idea. >I was right. I'm not taking anything personally >you've shown me long ago that you have no >legtimacy in your complaints. > >I told the group whatwas said so they would >know who and why it was said. Since youa re >the only one upset - oops sorry Maura is too - obviously >no one else cares. So stop your foot stomping and get a life > > > > >Mary A. Kelly wrote: > >> Barb: >> >> How dare you as a nominee standing in a democratic election presume that >> you have the right to interfer with the election process. That is >> outlandish! It is truly the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard >> of! As an impartial party Pascal should not even have considered your >> request or be bound by it! >> >> What true democrat? - a true democrat would insist on full disclosure - or >> consider withdrawing from an election instead if they really were >> interested in settling matters or worrying about what others may say. >> >> The people you are referring to on this list - I am speaking for myself - >> have ONE INTEREST in mind - IrelandGenWeb. I am sorry if you must take >> everything personally - if you are willing to dish it out, you should come >> to grips with the fact that you have to be able to receive it back, without >> having to stoop to name calling or silly inuendos when you are proven wrong >> or run out of steam. >> >> The 'complainers' on this list had only one interest - IrelandGenWeb - and >> ensuring that a rational, level headed person were finally appointed to >> manage it! Instead, we are subjected to undue influence by 'whoever' from >> behind the lines right up to the very last minute! >> >> Why should your request to 'supress' the results have any more weight than >> our request for 'full disclosure' - some democracy! So one person out of >> 17 over-rules the others! right!! >> >> Mary Kelly >> Co. Tip >> >> At 12:32 AM 2/13/00 -0500, irishsun@ptdprolog.net wrote: >> >hello and thank god it's over >> >i am going to fix an error nate unfortunately made. >> >i brought this to his attention. he was going to send >> >an email - i said i would. >> > >> >pascal said he was going to make the votes public >> >a true democrat at heart i asked him not to. >> >my reasons were simple >> >there are several people on this list who >> >have found a need to bicker with others, making fun of >> >them etc. i stated to pascal it would only cause more >> >bickering and back stabbing. that message went to him in >> >private from his public email. i purposefully deleted the igw address >> >for several reasons: i didn't want more accusations on the list, >> >and i didn't want more headaches from the fad 3. >> > >> >turns out i was right in my request. the complainers are making >> >yet another grievance to the committee concerning the election >> >which means igw is in yet another wonderful mess with wgw. >> > >> >wish i could stop this for ya.. but now the deed is in don's lap >> >don are you reaaly going to make the complaint or will be the leader >> >the majority hopes you'll be and put it behind us? >> > >> >good luck gang >> > >> >barb lavin >> > >> > >> > > > > > >

Well Mary I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ASK PASCAL!!!! YOU ARE NOT GOD YOU ARE NOT THE WORLD AND YOU ARE NOT IRELANDGENWEB. If you truly cared about Irelandgenweb the way you claim then you would stop attacking it and everyone else. If Pascal chose to take my request to heart then he has every right to do so. What's wrong?? did I hit a nerve was I right you would have blasted me. Never mind don't answer that your answer below shows I am. Since day one you have taunted me with your needy liitle questions. How can I do this How can I do that. I made the request because as a candidate I felt it was a bad idea. I was right. I'm not taking anything personally you've shown me long ago that you have no legtimacy in your complaints. I told the group whatwas said so they would know who and why it was said. Since youa re the only one upset - oops sorry Maura is too - obviously no one else cares. So stop your foot stomping and get a life Mary A. Kelly wrote: > Barb: > > How dare you as a nominee standing in a democratic election presume that > you have the right to interfer with the election process. That is > outlandish! It is truly the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard > of! As an impartial party Pascal should not even have considered your > request or be bound by it! > > What true democrat? - a true democrat would insist on full disclosure - or > consider withdrawing from an election instead if they really were > interested in settling matters or worrying about what others may say. > > The people you are referring to on this list - I am speaking for myself - > have ONE INTEREST in mind - IrelandGenWeb. I am sorry if you must take > everything personally - if you are willing to dish it out, you should come > to grips with the fact that you have to be able to receive it back, without > having to stoop to name calling or silly inuendos when you are proven wrong > or run out of steam. > > The 'complainers' on this list had only one interest - IrelandGenWeb - and > ensuring that a rational, level headed person were finally appointed to > manage it! Instead, we are subjected to undue influence by 'whoever' from > behind the lines right up to the very last minute! > > Why should your request to 'supress' the results have any more weight than > our request for 'full disclosure' - some democracy! So one person out of > 17 over-rules the others! right!! > > Mary Kelly > Co. Tip > > At 12:32 AM 2/13/00 -0500, irishsun@ptdprolog.net wrote: > >hello and thank god it's over > >i am going to fix an error nate unfortunately made. > >i brought this to his attention. he was going to send > >an email - i said i would. > > > >pascal said he was going to make the votes public > >a true democrat at heart i asked him not to. > >my reasons were simple > >there are several people on this list who > >have found a need to bicker with others, making fun of > >them etc. i stated to pascal it would only cause more > >bickering and back stabbing. that message went to him in > >private from his public email. i purposefully deleted the igw address > >for several reasons: i didn't want more accusations on the list, > >and i didn't want more headaches from the fad 3. > > > >turns out i was right in my request. the complainers are making > >yet another grievance to the committee concerning the election > >which means igw is in yet another wonderful mess with wgw. > > > >wish i could stop this for ya.. but now the deed is in don's lap > >don are you reaaly going to make the complaint or will be the leader > >the majority hopes you'll be and put it behind us? > > > >good luck gang > > > >barb lavin > > > > > >

Barb: How dare you as a nominee standing in a democratic election presume that you have the right to interfer with the election process. That is outlandish! It is truly the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard of! As an impartial party Pascal should not even have considered your request or be bound by it! What true democrat? - a true democrat would insist on full disclosure - or consider withdrawing from an election instead if they really were interested in settling matters or worrying about what others may say. The people you are referring to on this list - I am speaking for myself - have ONE INTEREST in mind - IrelandGenWeb. I am sorry if you must take everything personally - if you are willing to dish it out, you should come to grips with the fact that you have to be able to receive it back, without having to stoop to name calling or silly inuendos when you are proven wrong or run out of steam. The 'complainers' on this list had only one interest - IrelandGenWeb - and ensuring that a rational, level headed person were finally appointed to manage it! Instead, we are subjected to undue influence by 'whoever' from behind the lines right up to the very last minute! Why should your request to 'supress' the results have any more weight than our request for 'full disclosure' - some democracy! So one person out of 17 over-rules the others! right!! Mary Kelly Co. Tip At 12:32 AM 2/13/00 -0500, irishsun@ptdprolog.net wrote: >hello and thank god it's over >i am going to fix an error nate unfortunately made. >i brought this to his attention. he was going to send >an email - i said i would. > >pascal said he was going to make the votes public >a true democrat at heart i asked him not to. >my reasons were simple >there are several people on this list who >have found a need to bicker with others, making fun of >them etc. i stated to pascal it would only cause more >bickering and back stabbing. that message went to him in >private from his public email. i purposefully deleted the igw address >for several reasons: i didn't want more accusations on the list, >and i didn't want more headaches from the fad 3. > >turns out i was right in my request. the complainers are making >yet another grievance to the committee concerning the election >which means igw is in yet another wonderful mess with wgw. > >wish i could stop this for ya.. but now the deed is in don's lap >don are you reaaly going to make the complaint or will be the leader >the majority hopes you'll be and put it behind us? > >good luck gang > >barb lavin > > >

hello and thank god it's over i am going to fix an error nate unfortunately made. i brought this to his attention. he was going to send an email - i said i would. pascal said he was going to make the votes public a true democrat at heart i asked him not to. my reasons were simple there are several people on this list who have found a need to bicker with others, making fun of them etc. i stated to pascal it would only cause more bickering and back stabbing. that message went to him in private from his public email. i purposefully deleted the igw address for several reasons: i didn't want more accusations on the list, and i didn't want more headaches from the fad 3. turns out i was right in my request. the complainers are making yet another grievance to the committee concerning the election which means igw is in yet another wonderful mess with wgw. wish i could stop this for ya.. but now the deed is in don's lap don are you reaaly going to make the complaint or will be the leader the majority hopes you'll be and put it behind us? good luck gang barb lavin

Hi gang. Pascal will not be releasing more voting information. The best we may be able to do is ascertain how many votes were cast. That request is reasonable. Don

I hope we shall never become complacent again. Thanks for the support. Now to work <g> Don ----- Original Message ----- From: <Waterlilys@aol.com> To: <IGW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 6:08 PM Subject: [IGW-cc] Re: IGW Elections - Results > > << The winner of the elections for the new NC is Don Kelly. >> > > Congratulations to both Barb and Don for a hard fought election, > and best wishes to our new NC! Slán go fóill (bye for now) to Nate. > > Just being able to vote underscores how valuable having a voice is. > ... something our Irish ancestors toiled long and hard for... and still are. > > Lets make sure that voice is not lost or left up to others. > > maryt > co kerry > iregenweb >

Thank you Jack. I have received nothing official, but have already started moving forward. Politeness will describe the list and disagreements will be resolved off list. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Reidy" <jreidy@writeme.com> To: <IGW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [IGW-cc] Election > > > Congratulations, Don. > > I hope all of us can now work together on the IGW. There will be > disagreements but I hope we all can maintain politeness and mutual > respect. > > Jack > > -- > Jack Reidy jreidy@writeme.com > http://www.geocities.com/jackreidy/ > has Limerick & Irish Genealogy, REIDYs, etc > http://jackreidy.homepage.com/ >

I wish the project well and do hope that you all can come together and put the past behind you. I will be unsubscribing from the list just as soon as I get it changed over to your new country host. Nate Nathan Zipfel NorthernIrelandGenWeb Project Host http://www.britishislesgenweb.org/northernireland

Hi all, Here is Pascal's Announcement, he used an alternate address so it didn't go through. My congratulations to the winner. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Pascal Pinan-Lucarre [mailto:pascal.pinan-lucarre@mediterraneangenweb.org] Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 3:09 PM To: IGW-L@rootsweb.com Subject: {not a subscriber} IGW Elections - Results Importance: High Dear All, The winner of the elections for the new NC is Don Kelly. Best regards. Pascal Pinan-Lucarre

Hi all, Please allow the past to remain in the past. There was no agenda nor has then been a purposeful delay. We all have other commitments. Pascal has contacted me and he now has the results and will be announcing them to the list. I would hope that after the results are announced that you all can begin working together to build the IGW instead of turn on each other. I am very ready to leave the project. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Mary A. Kelly [mailto:mkelly@cyberbeach.net] Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 10:25 AM To: IGW-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [IGW] Results? the 12th GMT Yes it was obvious from the first that Pascal had 'previous obligations' and that both Nate and he were aware of this from the beginning - I am glad that you acknowledge this fact. It took me an entire 30 seconds to type up and send in my vote - I did not 'lose' my instructions for voting, nor did I have to seek help on how to do it. It is outlandish that the process has purposely drawn out in the manner that it has! I did not require 8 days to vote - even if my entire system had gone down, I would have seen to it that my vote was lodged from the local 'cyber cafe' or any local library. I can see very few circumstances that would have precluded my being able to vote. I would have gone out of my way to fulfill my obligation - I would expect nothing less from others with a similar obligation. And yes! even if I had a family obligation myself, I would feel honour bound to fulfill my duties - regardless of how difficult it may be - that is what the words obligation and duty implies. What, maybe we should just do things when and if we feel like it or when it is convenient? That sure is the kind of management I would like to see for the Ireland project - not! That is why I voted for Don - he is not the type of person that would try to sweep things under the carpet or make lame excuses. I am sure that this latest developement is an eye opener for any hosts that may have being wondering what the fuss was about in the first place when some of us tried to stand up for the IrelandGenWeb. I continue to wonder what on earth the actual agenda is. You spend so much time and energy defending those that are currently in control of the project - please spare me your platitudes! I would like to be able to get back to my regular routine - the fact that this entire situation has been allowed to fester for over a month is ridiculous! Why on earth was OUR election turned over to someone that had previous committments at the time it was to be held? Who picked Pascal as the coordinator (when it was a known fact when he would be unavailable)? Was there no other person available in the entire WorldGen organization that it could have been entrusted to? Nate said when he first announced the 'elections' that it would be held on 15 Feb - well guess what! Do you not have the imagination to see that that is exactly what we are being held to! It is now 12 Feb! We were subjected to this process due to circumstances beyond OUR control. But the entire thing is obviously in someone's control! LASTLEY - THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE DID NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION! Per its own wording 'THE COMMITTEE CAME TO UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT! (see the message below - just in case you 'LOST' yours!) I would advise that you please read the messages before you start another campaign of defending those that are holding the IrelandGenWeb hostage for whatever reason. I don't know where you got your 'keyword' (recommendation) from. I certainly didn't see it in the message. There was and is, nothing 'nice' or 'courteous' about our situation. Please, Barb, do not presume to tell me not to worry or get upset - it is about a month too late for that!, and do not infer that I am 'cold', you do not have the right to do so! If I were indeed cold, I would not be expending my energy on this subject, it is because I care about the project, not vice versa! I was very worried actually and am getting more so now - you see - I care about the IrelandGenWeb project PERIOD! Nothing else! No egos, not defending those that do not need defending, not dreaming up lame excuses for others! Otherwise, I would not be answering silly messages from yourself. How can you propose to tell all of us 'not to worry' - you of all people as one of the nominees should be more worried about our project and what the outcome is. Or do you know something that the rest of us don't? I am interested in knowing who voted, and when they voted - I don't care who they voted for, that is none of my business. The fact that the election was properly conducted is my business as one of the voters / interested parties. I am also interested in the total number of ballots cast and the number of spoiled ballots. Actually, I hope that all of the ballots cast will be available for review - I don't know if you have ever heard of a scrutineer (don't know if I spelt it right) - they are folks that are present to ensure that things are handled honestly - generally each nominee is able to have one present when votes are counted, just to make sure that everyone involved can be sure that everything is on the 'up and up'! Don't tell me that 'Ireland will be there in the morning'! Six counties are already gone aren't they? Gee! one 'morning' they were just gone from IrelandGenWeb! As our potential leader how can you propose to be so disinterested yourself in the outcome of the entire election process? Mary Kelly Co. tipperary FROM THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE: At 01:03 PM 1/11/00 -0700, you wrote: >The Committee came to unanimous agreement. > >On 3 of 12 grievances filed against Nate Zipfel. > >1. Jan 20th 11:59 pm (a minute before midnight) deadline for >nominations for the Country Coordinator >Feb 1st 11:59 pm (a minute before midnight) deadline to cast >votes. Pascal of Mediterrean GenWeb (Region), coordinator is to >oversee the process and he can set specific rules governing this >particular nomination and election process. > <snip> At 10:43 AM 2/12/00 -0500, irishsun@ptdprolog.net wrote: >The keyword in all of this is "recommended." >Pascal gave us an 8 day period. That was his decision. >While yes we may not have needed that long- it was nice to allow >us all the courtesy of prior engagements, jobs, family, weather. >I for one was happy to have the 8 day grace as 3 out of the 4 I just >listed DID affect me. > >In Pascal's note he did say if I am home >This obviously means he had a prior engagement. Are we really >that cold we can't allow for him to have a life too? >While yes I would like to know - I'm not going to die if >I don't have the results today, yesterday or the day before. > >If you have a family emergency do you say -ooopss I need to >tell so and so I can't be there or do something or do you answer the >call. Most of us depending on the emergency would answer the >call. > >So let's just stop worrying and getting upset and just sit back do our >pages and wait. > >Ireland will be here in the morning. Nate has eturned the pages to ~irlwgw >so they are there already for the new CC. > >BarbL > > >Mary A. Kelly wrote: > >> "Is a few more days or hours really going to make or break us??" >> >> As a matter of fact, yes! We asked for nothing more than a fast and >> efficient election - not one where the voting itself was drawn out for a >> totally unnecessary 8 days - then an additional 4 days for the results! We >> have been put through enough during the past month. >> >> The grievance committee had recommended that the election be held on 1 Feb >> 00! (not 1 to 8 Feb). This is now the 12th and we are stilling waiting. >> This is so totally unprofessional. >> >> Anyone that voted incorrectly (as per Pascal's rules) is automatically >> disqualified so that is not a factor. You receive the vote, if it is good >> it is credited to that nominee, if it is not good it is counted as a >> spoiled ballot. There was a possible total of 17 voters. This is not an >> unmanageable figure to be dealt with regardless of circumstances. If the >> person responsible for producing the results is not available or otherwise >> able to do so for any reason, we should be advised as a matter of courtesy. >> >> I am interested if there was anyone on the list (amongst the 17 possible >> voters) that delayed their vote until midnight 8 Feb 00. If not then the >> votes could have been tallied at an even earlier date. I voted on 1 Feb 00 >> myself. >> >> Mary Kelly >> Co. Tipperary >> >> At 11:49 PM 2/11/00 -0500, irishsun@ptdprolog.net wrote: >> >Perhaps not an oversight or breach of responsiblity >> >Since we have noidea why Pascalisn't telling us the results >> >any number of things could have happened >> >from: >> >People incorrectly voting to a death ( God forbid) in >> >his family. I for one am for giving Pascal the benefit >> >of the doubt. Is a few more days or hours really going >> >to make or break us?? >> > >> >BarbL >> > >> >Donkelly wrote: >> > >> >> Perhaps we should talk about using the electionbot in the future. >> >> >> >> If an oversight, this one seems a rather severe breach of responsibility. >> >> >> >> Don Kelly >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Nathan Zipfel" <nate@gte.net> >> >> To: <IGW-L@rootsweb.com> >> >> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 7:28 PM >> >> Subject: RE: [IGW] Results? the 12th GMT >> >> >> >> > The last I heard from him was 2 days ago. I haven't seen him on-line in >> >> the >> >> > past 2 days so I don't know if he's had a family crisis or something. >> >> > >> >> > Nate >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >

Putting the past in the past was the whole idea. Apparently most CC's agreed. Thanks. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Zipfel" <nate@gte.net> To: <IGW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 6:52 PM Subject: [IGW-cc] IGW > I wish the project well and do hope that you all can come together and put > the past behind you. I will be unsubscribing from the list just as soon as > I get it changed over to your new country host. > > Nate > > Nathan Zipfel > NorthernIrelandGenWeb Project Host > http://www.britishislesgenweb.org/northernireland >

Congratulations, Don. I hope all of us can now work together on the IGW. There will be disagreements but I hope we all can maintain politeness and mutual respect. Jack -- Jack Reidy jreidy@writeme.com http://www.geocities.com/jackreidy/ has Limerick & Irish Genealogy, REIDYs, etc http://jackreidy.homepage.com/

I have heard nothing official. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maura" <mpetzolt2@webtv.net> To: <IGW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 4:22 PM Subject: [IGW-cc] digests > Well, I hear from Nate (since I am on digest) that the results have > indeed been posted. > > So congratulations Don, even tho I haven't officially seen the results. > > I had thought the results would have been sent to us individually as we > all are not on this IGW list... so I hope all the hosts do find out > about these results. > > > Maura mpetzolt2@webtv.net > *********************************** > Helpful Hints for Successful Searching > http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlwat/instruct.htm > To join the SHAMROCK list (for searching in all of Ireland), send only > the word subscribe in the body of an email to > SHAMROCK-L-request@rootsweb.com or SHAMROCK-D-request@rootsweb.com > for the digest version >

Thank you Vicki. Surprisingly, I have received no official notification. There is plenty to do for everyone who wants to help. Just let me collect my thoughts for a couple of days. <G> Nice that we can move forward now. Don Kelly ----- Original Message ----- From: <GG4you4170@aol.com> To: <IGW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [IGW-cc] Election > Don- Congratulations! Now.... what can I do to help. I have been waiting > patiently > > Vicki > County Wicklow >

Thank you Betsy. Jane sent a similar message a few minutes ago. I have not at this time 05:10PM Oregon time ( WST ) been officially notified of the results of the election. I had no quarrel with anyone except those who wanted the next four years to be like the past four years. That is over and no hard feelings as far as I know and we can from where we now stand move forward. I am happy you did not walk. It was hard I know, but I felt it was necessary. Your help will indeed be welcome. We have a lot of work to do. Don Kelly ----- Original Message ----- From: "betsy" <betsy@megalink.net> To: <IGW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 4:14 PM Subject: [IGW-cc] Election > Don Kelly, > I wish you well in your new position. > I do hope that the "quarrel" is put to bed; that the past is truly gone; > it's been an uncomfortable, unfriendly place to come into as a new county > host. I came so close to taking a walk. > > I am here to cooperate and to work with you as best I can. > > Betsy Webber, Co-host County Cork >

Hi Pascal: Thank you very much for your help in coordinating the IrelandGenWeb election. I am worried that perhaps all hosts may not have received the results of the election as apparently many of them had unsubscribed from the project mailing list. Is it possible for you to send the offical results out to your 'recipient list' of voters to ensure that everyone is notified now that the election is over? Also, as per you message of 31 Jan 2000, you stated that you would supply us with the information about how many votes each nominee received. Is it possible for you to post the numbers involved with the election: ie number of votes cast and number of votes credited to each nominee. Thank you again for all that you have done for us. Mary Kelly Host, Co. Tipperary, IreglandGenWeb --------------------------- X-Sender: pascal.pinan-lucarre@smtp.francegenweb.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:39:30 +0100 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Pascal Pinan-Lucarre <pascal.pinan-lucarre@francegenweb.org> Subject: IGW vote : answer to 2 questions Dear All, I have been asked by one of you : 1. When will you report the votes? 2. Will you say how many each person got? My answer is : 1. After the vote closing date (of course) and depending on my occupation (if I am at home on 9. Feb evening or not). 2. Yes. Next answer (if there are some questions) : on 2nd Feb. Bye for now. Pascal Pinan-Lucarre

Hmmm! I hadn't though of that! Some folks apparently had withdrawn from the list - and Pascal did have all of our email addresses (they were required as part of our official ballot). Mary K Co. Tip At 06:22 PM 2/12/00 -0600, you wrote: >Well, I hear from Nate (since I am on digest) that the results have >indeed been posted. > >So congratulations Don, even tho I haven't officially seen the results. > >I had thought the results would have been sent to us individually as we >all are not on this IGW list... so I hope all the hosts do find out >about these results. > > >Maura mpetzolt2@webtv.net >*********************************** >Helpful Hints for Successful Searching >http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlwat/instruct.htm > To join the SHAMROCK list (for searching in all of Ireland), send only >the word subscribe in the body of an email to >SHAMROCK-L-request@rootsweb.com or SHAMROCK-D-request@rootsweb.com >for the digest version > > >

Congratulations Don and good luck with your coordinatorship. I am sure that we are all willing to help out with the project should you need us to do so in the future. Mary Kelly Co. Tip

Well, I hear from Nate (since I am on digest) that the results have indeed been posted. So congratulations Don, even tho I haven't officially seen the results. I had thought the results would have been sent to us individually as we all are not on this IGW list... so I hope all the hosts do find out about these results. Maura mpetzolt2@webtv.net *********************************** Helpful Hints for Successful Searching http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlwat/instruct.htm To join the SHAMROCK list (for searching in all of Ireland), send only the word subscribe in the body of an email to SHAMROCK-L-request@rootsweb.com or SHAMROCK-D-request@rootsweb.com for the digest version