Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information
owen at delong.com
Fri Jun 6 07:16:33 UTC 2014
> On Jun 6, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:
> The whole point that requirement was not valid according to bylaw
> itself, and assuring me for being fraud is largely in-appreciate and
Whether you think the requirement is valid or not, the requirement is listed in the election procedures. You clearly understood the requirement and somewhat accepted it because you claimed to be a resident of the Seychelles in your self-nomination. Since that statement was a misrepresentation in order to gain a material advantage (the very definition of fraud), I stand by my statement.
> Both of your fail to understand a simple principle, an nomination
> should be transparent to be legitimate to begin with. I guess that is
> the reason most so called democracy government establish by one
> western country in the world won't really a success. Because your guys
> prefer a "black box".
I find accusations of non-transparency coming from someone who attempted to hide his residency status from the community questionable at best.
> All I said, guessing the information(in which mark admitted in the
> floor), was a wrong process, and both of your americans pop up and
> start telling the floor it is the right process--it may works in your
> country but I guess not anywhere else.
It seems to have worked here.
> And plus, I has never arguing about being the chair or not--as I said
> multiple times, results does not matter to me--if I be the chair and
> helping the community, I am happy, but if community thinks someone
> else more capable then me, I will support the new chair as well.
Yes... To others, the result is the important thing. From our perspective, the process worked and the desired result (a slate of qualified candidates) was achieved. The process complaints of an unqualified candidate who feels that his lack of qualification was detected by means he doesn't like pretty much come out sounding like a simple case of sour grapes.
> End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and
> nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am.
If they were wrong, perhaps you have a legitimate beef. Since they were correct, I have trouble thinking that anyone owes you an apology. Rather, I think you owe the community an apology for the colossal amount of time you have wasted with this issue.
If you want the last word, be my guest. I am done with this discussion and my points have been made.
More information about the RPD