Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] votes

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 11:21:58 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Aidan McLoughlin wrote:
>88: For
>89: None, i am undecided on this one, I agree with Henry about the problem
>with the dishonesty factor regarding the SoT, but there is some useful
>clarification in there too.  Surely we can trust the SoT?  Anyway, can
>someone please give me "0000utc" in "Greenwich Mean Time" or some other
>time zone i don't understand where utc is. 
>90: For
>91: For
>92: For
>93: For

As a note Aidan, you most likely want to vote Loyal and get the 3 loyalty
points per proposal rather than no points for voting for.  It's also no
longer required (though it is allowed) to vote publically :)

--JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

---

From: Aidan McLoughlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 20:32:05 +0100

>longer required (though it is allowed) to vote publically :)

gud idea, here are the modified votes:

88: loyal
89: loyal (i will trust the judgment of the mrps)
90: loyal
91: loyal
92: for
93: for

also i have been having some trouble contacting lambda so i am doing
everything this way.  I have been getting a "mail delivery failed" e-mail
back.

Dan

  /================================================================\
  | Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.  |
  | But on the other hand, you have different fingers. --  :)      |
  \================================================================/