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

Nate, I wish you well! Thank you for all the help you gave me when Tom Cleary and I came on as co-hosts of the Cork Page. Betsy Webber ---------- > From: Nathan Zipfel <nate@gte.net> > To: IGW-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [IGW-cc] IGW > Date: Saturday, February 12, 2000 9:52 PM > > 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 >

Instead of turning this into yet another argument..... Nate have you (as head of WGW) tried to get in touch with Pascal by phone or has anyone else on the Board heard from him? You had said you hadn't heard from him in two days , but that was a day or so ago..... If indeed (heaven forbid) he had an emergency, I'm sure someone would want to know, in order to assist him. And if something else has happened, or nothing has happened, we DO need to know what is going on, as Pascal had stated in an email to all those voting that he _would_ be letting us know the results, including how many each candidate got, as soon as he had them tallied. (I've lost the original email but it was to that effect.) I would think the WGW would be concerned as they are well aware of how volitile this situation is, and a delay of this sort , for whatever reason, I would think is just setting themselves up for a "problem" with the results being contested or something. So Nate, what are you doing to look into this delay? As chair of the WGW, I would think that would be within your arena. 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

<< 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

Don- Congratulations! Now.... what can I do to help. I have been waiting patiently Vicki County Wicklow

As a matter of interest according to the information on 'Votebot' at <http://www.votebot.com/information/faq.html> "When a Votebot ends, ballots are longer accepted, and no-one may register to vote.  Ballots are tallied and results generated - this process can take up to a few minutes depending on load. " A time period for voting is set up, votes counted and results distributed within minutes of the voting deadline - a normal, effective election process! Why were we not allowed to use such an automated and impartial process when it is readily available to all on line? It would certainly have removed the need for anyone to go out of their way to compile the results. Mary Kelly Co. Tip At 08:18 PM 2/11/00 -0800, 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 > > > >

Yes, I do recall that the original date to count votes was adamantly and repeatedly set at Nov 15, 2000. Through complaint we managed to see the date retreated two weeks. But now the world is rolling steadily toward Feb 13th with the 15th being on Monday. I have to ask myself, "Are these delays just more coincidences, or are they part and parcel to the original plan?" Color me "concerned". Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary A. Kelly" <mkelly@cyberbeach.net> To: <IGW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 10:24 AM 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >

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 > > > > > > > > > >

In a message dated 2/11/2000 11:07:41 PM Central Standard Time, mkelly@cyberbeach.net writes: << 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. >> Vicki from County Wicklow--- I didn't wait.

"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 > > > > >

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

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

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 -----Original Message----- From: Maura [mailto:mpetzolt2@webtv.net] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 4:19 PM To: IGW-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [IGW] Results? the 12th GMT To the best of my knowledge, it's now Saturday, Feb 12th according to GMT, if not, it's one hour short of it. So..... where's Pascal and where are the results? The election was over 4 days ago.... I'm a perfectionist too but really, this is too much. Maura thinking the original suggestion of using an automated votebot.com would have been faster? 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

In a message dated 2/11/2000 8:31:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, donkelly@grovenet.net writes: << Perhaps we should talk about using the electionbot in the future. If an oversight, this one seems a rather severe breach of responsibility. >> If anything it shows... in the future something like this should never be left to ONE person. Its not a very effecient way to run things. Just as there are no policies for certain thing circumstances.. so much to learn from so much that needs to be improved. maryt co kerry iregenweb

To the best of my knowledge, it's now Saturday, Feb 12th according to GMT, if not, it's one hour short of it. So..... where's Pascal and where are the results? The election was over 4 days ago.... I'm a perfectionist too but really, this is too much. Maura thinking the original suggestion of using an automated votebot.com would have been faster? 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

Actually for Pascal, it is already the 11th. He does a very thorough job in everything that he does and he will have the results to us soon. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Donkelly [mailto:donkelly@grovenet.net] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 4:14 PM To: IGW-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [IGW] Election Thanks Nate. I wonder if Pascal realizes that in most of the world the date is already the 11th? How long should it take to count 16 or less votes? Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Zipfel" <nate@gte.net> To: <IGW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:59 PM Subject: RE: [IGW] Election > Pascal is still working to count the election results. He'll have them out > soon. > > Nate > > -----Original Message----- > From: Donkelly [mailto:donkelly@grovenet.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 2:30 PM > To: IGW-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [IGW] Election > > > Any CC's out there hear from Nate, David or Pascal today? > > Results of the election were scheduled to be announced on Feb 10. That is > today. > > Don > > > >

Pascal is still working to count the election results. He'll have them out soon. Nate -----Original Message----- From: Donkelly [mailto:donkelly@grovenet.net] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 2:30 PM To: IGW-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [IGW] Election Any CC's out there hear from Nate, David or Pascal today? Results of the election were scheduled to be announced on Feb 10. That is today. Don

Thanks Nate. I wonder if Pascal realizes that in most of the world the date is already the 11th? How long should it take to count 16 or less votes? Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Zipfel" <nate@gte.net> To: <IGW-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:59 PM Subject: RE: [IGW] Election > Pascal is still working to count the election results. He'll have them out > soon. > > Nate > > -----Original Message----- > From: Donkelly [mailto:donkelly@grovenet.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 2:30 PM > To: IGW-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [IGW] Election > > > Any CC's out there hear from Nate, David or Pascal today? > > Results of the election were scheduled to be announced on Feb 10. That is > today. > > Don > > > >

Any CC's out there hear from Nate, David or Pascal today? Results of the election were scheduled to be announced on Feb 10. That is today. Don