Voting results

[UCRM Monitor]

Hullo everyone.

I have been reading the guidelines at uk.voting.org - most
interesting.

They do say that the results SHALL include the NAMES of the voters.

The results of a recent vote seem to have a list of mostly-names with
some things that are clearly not the voter's name - "mcp" for
example, and "Wm".

As the word "name" is nowhere redefined in the guidelines (I'm sure
someone will tell me if I am wrong) it must be that the ordinary
meaning is what is meant.

Helpfully, the guidelines do state that "SHALL" means that failure to
follow the guideline renders an RDF invalid - though that does not
also say that other instruments of administration would also be
invalid. (Though it would be nice to be wrong about that). It does
seem to me that the vote results are the most important of these, and
it would be essential that they follow the spirit of the guidelines
even better.

I would be very disappointed if, say, a vote were taken and the
results required some group to take actions, which they could refuse
to do by claiming the results were invalid.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <almarsoft.3006...@news.aioe.org>,

me...@privacy.net (UCRM Monitor) wrote:

> As the word "name" is nowhere redefined in the guidelines (I'm sure
> someone will tell me if I am wrong) it must be that the ordinary
> meaning is what is meant.

NAME

Noun
A word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is
known, addressed, or referred to.


I am sure that Wm and mcp would reconise those series of letters as the
"word or set of words" by which they are referred in this environment.

A word in English need not contain more than one letter, or any vowels.

I therefore see no merit in your position.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[UCRM Monitor]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 15:11 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

> I therefore see no merit in your position.

You are a fuckwit.

Perhaps you have never voted, or if you did you did not read the
ballot.

(Which clearly allows a voter to enter a PSEUDONYM instead of their
name, i.e. something which is not their name).

You are Paul Cummins - but I said that already.

[Percy Picacity]

Most of us are in the UK and there is no legally correct or official
name allocated to us. You can stamp up and down and swear at me all
you want, but if I want to use x as my name then I am perfectly
entitled to do so: and change it as often as I want. The only thing I
can't do is use a name to commit fraud (like pretending to be someone
I'm not in a discussion group - if there were money or other real
advantage involved).

--

Percy Picacity

[Percy Picacity]

Just to be more explicit in case of further argument: the set of
names includes pseudonyms.

--

Percy Picacity

[UCRM Monitor]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 16:17:42 +0000, Percy Picacity
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> >> Perhaps you have never voted, or if you did you did not read the
ballot.
> >>
> >> (Which clearly allows a voter to enter a PSEUDONYM instead of
their
> >> name, i.e. something which is not their name).
> >>
> >> You are Paul Cummins - but I said that already.
> >
> > Most of us are in the UK and there is no legally correct or
official
> > name allocated to us. You can stamp up and down and swear at me
all
> > you want, but if I want to use x as my name then I am perfectly
> > entitled to do so: and change it as often as I want. The only
thing I
> > can't do is use a name to commit fraud (like pretending to be
someone
> > I'm not in a discussion group - if there were money or other real
> > advantage involved).


> Just to be more explicit in case of further argument: the set of
> names includes pseudonyms.

Sorry sunshine - that just won't do.

If I say "A or B" that quite clearly says that I know that A is not B.

The guidelines are specific - they do not say "name or pseudonym".
The ballot does say (in essence) "A or B".

They are not the same - the argument is that simple.

I'm sorry you are having difficulty understanding this - perhaps you
can get the fuckwit Cummins to explain it better.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.management, UCRM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:

>I'm sorry you are having difficulty understanding this - perhaps you
>can get the fuckwit Cummins to explain it better.

Is your name URCM Monitor? Or is it me99?
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Judith]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 09:42:02 -0400, UCRM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:

>Hullo everyone.


No body is fooled as to who you are you know.

[Barry Salter]

On 09/03/2013 13:42, UCRM Monitor wrote:
> Hullo everyone.
>
> I have been reading the guidelines at uk.voting.org - most interesting.
>
> They do say that the results SHALL include the NAMES of the voters.
>
> The results of a recent vote seem to have a list of mostly-names with
> some things that are clearly not the voter's name - "mcp" for example,
> and "Wm".
>
> As the word "name" is nowhere redefined in the guidelines (I'm sure
> someone will tell me if I am wrong) it must be that the ordinary meaning
> is what is meant.
>
> Helpfully, the guidelines do state that "SHALL" means that failure to
> follow the guideline renders an RDF invalid - though that does not also
> say that other instruments of administration would also be invalid.
> (Though it would be nice to be wrong about that). It does seem to me
> that the vote results are the most important of these, and it would be
> essential that they follow the spirit of the guidelines even better.

About ten years ago, there was an RFD comprising four proposals to "tidy
up" the voting procedures. One of these proposals dealt with the subject
of "names" that people were using to vote but no consensus was reached
in the resulting CFV.

In the specific cases mentioned, both Wm and mcp have extensive
histories of posting to Usenet, though it should be noted that a posting
history is *NOT* a prerequisite for voting.

Cheers,

Barry

[UCRM Monitor]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:35:56 +0000, Barry Salter
<sal...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> About ten years ago, there was an RFD comprising four proposals to
"tidy
> up" the voting procedures. One of these proposals dealt with the
subject
> of "names" that people were using to vote but no consensus was
reached
> in the resulting CFV.

So for ten years not only have the results of all the votes been
invalid, but the comittee (and uk voting and Control) have *known*
they are invalid and done nothing about it.

Excellent.

The finest minds in the uk.net hierarchy at work.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-09, UCRM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:35:56 +0000, Barry Salter
><sal...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> About ten years ago, there was an RFD comprising four proposals to
>> "tidy up" the voting procedures. One of these proposals dealt with
>> the subject of "names" that people were using to vote but no
>> consensus was reached in the resulting CFV.
>
> So for ten years not only have the results of all the votes been
> invalid, but the comittee (and uk voting and Control) have *known*
> they are invalid and done nothing about it.

Your opinion does not make them invalid.

[UCRM Monitor]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 18:00:32 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> > So for ten years not only have the results of all the votes been
> > invalid, but the comittee (and uk voting and Control) have
*known*
> > they are invalid and done nothing about it.


> Your opinion does not make them invalid.

Not my opinion - no, certainly not.

The fact that the results do not follow the guidelines does, however.

Are you claiming responsibility for this mess?

That is "very brave" of you.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-09, UCRM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 18:00:32 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> > So for ten years not only have the results of all the votes been
>> > invalid, but the comittee (and uk voting and Control) have *known*
>> > they are invalid and done nothing about it.
>
>> Your opinion does not make them invalid.
>
> Not my opinion - no, certainly not.
>
> The fact that the results do not follow the guidelines does, however.

That is not a fact, it is just your opinion.

> Are you claiming responsibility for this mess?

No, I am saying that your opinion does not make the results invalid.

[UCRM Monitor]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 09:42:02 -0400, UCRM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:

>Hullo everyone.

For the avoidance of doubt - this post was made by Porky Chapman in an attempt
top smear the person he believes usually uses the name URCM Monitor.

[Judith]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:21:27 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

>In uk.net.news.management, UCRM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry you are having difficulty understanding this - perhaps you
>>can get the fuckwit Cummins to explain it better.
>
>Is your name URCM Monitor? Or is it me99?

I think you will find it is Porky Chapman.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.management, UCRM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:

You of course have proof of that? Whoever 'you' are?

[Tony]

Post your proof.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 13:50:35 -0400, UCRM Monitor put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:35:56 +0000, Barry Salter
><sal...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> About ten years ago, there was an RFD comprising four proposals to
>"tidy
>> up" the voting procedures. One of these proposals dealt with the
>subject
>> of "names" that people were using to vote but no consensus was
>reached
>> in the resulting CFV.
>
>So for ten years not only have the results of all the votes been
>invalid, but the comittee (and uk voting and Control) have *known*
>they are invalid and done nothing about it.

They are not invalid. We have stuck with the position that "name" means
"name used to post to Usenet". That is what it has always meant. There have
been proposals to change that, but none of them have been successful.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[UCRM Monitor]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 22:06:48 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >So for ten years not only have the results of all the votes been
> >invalid, but the comittee (and uk voting and Control) have *known*
> >they are invalid and done nothing about it.


> They are not invalid. We have stuck with the position that "name"
means
> "name used to post to Usenet". That is what it has always meant.
There have
> been proposals to change that, but none of them have been
successful.

Oh you are a silly billy.

What part of "will be invalid" don't you understand?

(Not my words, they are from the guidelines - perhaps you could read
them).

Funny how the guidelines do not say "name, or some made-up
combination of letters and numbers that the ballot says you can put
in place of your name". If someone's name were a matter of
importance in ordinary life, say, just for example, in court, they
are not going to say "why today I am mentalguy2k8 or mcp or
derderd...@hotmail.com. They give their name, or they are in
serious trouble.

Perhaps those proposals you failed to adopt ten years ago were from
people who realized exactly that.

You really want to watch what you say you know. Things can come back
and really bite you on the arse.

Unless of course "name" is a word that the comittee has secretly
re-defined for their own purposes. What other words in the
guidelines have secret special meanings, that are different from
those used by sensible folk? I think we should be told.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:53:52 -0400, UCRM Monitor put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 22:06:48 +0000, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> >So for ten years not only have the results of all the votes been
>> >invalid, but the comittee (and uk voting and Control) have *known*
>> >they are invalid and done nothing about it.
>
>
>> They are not invalid. We have stuck with the position that "name"
>means
>> "name used to post to Usenet". That is what it has always meant.
>There have
>> been proposals to change that, but none of them have been
>successful.
>
>Oh you are a silly billy.

Better than being a fuckwit, like you.

>What part of "will be invalid" don't you understand?

I understand all of it. You, however, do not appear to understand the fact
that "name" can mean different things in differ net circumstances. And, for
the purposes of a Usenet vote, the only thing which matters is the name
used on Usenet.

[Judith]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:38:28 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>>I think you will find it is Porky Chapman.
>
>Post your proof.

I apologise - I actually have no proof that it is Porky Chapman - I understand
that the odds on it being Wm have been much shortened.

Still - both fuckwits - it could be either.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <almarsoft.8384...@news.aioe.org>,
me...@privacy.net (UCRM Monitor) wrote:

> You are a fuckwit.

I guess it must take one to know one then...

[Wm]

uk.net.news.management <aq1a5k...@mid.individual.net>

I'm bemused about the purpose or intention of this thread.

If the OP wants me to be William rather than Wm and for my family name
(hardly a secret) to appear then I don't have a problem with that.

Where do we stop and start? Is Molly Margaret? Is Jon really Jonathan?
Should women that are married use their birth certificate names or their
married names?

It just seems so silly to me, particularly as Judith's evil twin seems
to be involved.

[Wm]

uk.net.news.management <5gjnj8tmpktg98de9...@4ax.com>

I'd like to have a bet on this. Where do I find the person holding the
money?

[Judith]

Would that be like the last time you had a bet with me? When Crispin
volunteered to hold the money?

Remind me - why did it not go ahead?

(Thanks - anyway for the clear indication it was not you :-) - that just
leaves one other then - of course I have no proof though. Mind you - Porky
does not work on proof when it comes to posting messages - I am reminded of Lou
Knee. Even Clive George twigged he was behind a recent nym)

[Judith]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:30:23 +0000, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>It just seems so silly to me, particularly as Judith's evil twin seems
>to be involved.

Sorry sunshine - not involved at all.

[Joan Frank]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:38:52 +0000, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> I'd like to have a bet on this. Where do I find the person holding
the
> money?

It's Three-card Monte, you know who'll be holding it soon.

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:47:46 +0000, Judith wrote...

I suspect he suspects one of your continental "cousins".

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[kat]

The Oxford Dictionary defines "name" as " a word or set of words by which a
person or thing is known, addressed, or referred to". Thus it would seem
right for the "name" to be shown in usenet votes to be the "name" people
recognise, not something entirely different, and I cannot see that the
guidelines say it cannot be so. After all names can be changed.

There was some discussion when I first stood for the Committee as to whether
I should reveal my "real life" "non-usenet" name. Some people thought I
should, others that it was entirely unnecessary, given people would
recognise me by my nym. It wasn't a problem for me, I said what it was
right at the start, as there were people who knew and it had never been a
secret. Indeed, many people who know by real life name have called me "kat"
to my face in real life situations.



--
kat
>^..^<

[Peter Duncanson]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:01:09 -0000, "kat" <little...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<delurk>

If someone who uses a nym for Usenet and other online purposes were to
give a first name and surname in response to a demand for a real name we
would still not know what their real name was. Something that looks like
a "real name" may not be that person's name as used on a credit card,
passport or other formal documents.

To be sure of getting a person's real "real name" would need them to
give some proof of identity, such as would be needed when opening a bamk
account. Surely that would be total overkill for Usenet UK voting
purposes?

[UCRM Monitor]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:01:09 -0000, "kat" <little...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> The Oxford Dictionary defines "name" as " a word or set of words by
which a
> person or thing is known, addressed, or referred to". Thus it
would seem
> right for the "name" to be shown in usenet votes to be the "name"
people
> recognise, not something entirely different, and I cannot see that
the
> guidelines say it cannot be so. After all names can be changed.

All very true.

But the ballot clearly says "name or <something else>".

If it is something else, it is not a name.

Very clearly there some that take advantage of this. There are some
things in that address that are NOT names - they have never been
posted to usenet and some are even email adresses. It has been
alleged that multiple votes have been cast by people; all very easy
when a person can have one name one minute, and "something else" the
next.

Why is the vote-taker not complying with the guidelines, and perhaps
a greater concern why is the comittee, who have had ten years warning
(by their own admission) not taken the initiative to correct this
flaw?

Perhaps you are just like Whacko Jackson, who has rules for other
people but not for himself.

[UCRM Monitor]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:57:47 +0000, Peter Duncanson
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:


> If someone who uses a nym for Usenet and other online purposes were
to
> give a first name and surname in response to a demand for a real
name we
> would still not know what their real name was. Something that looks
like
> a "real name" may not be that person's name as used on a credit
card,
> passport or other formal documents.


> To be sure of getting a person's real "real name" would need them to
> give some proof of identity, such as would be needed when opening a
bamk
> account. Surely that would be total overkill for Usenet UK voting
> purposes?

Maybe so.

But I cannot help that. The comittee, in it's wisdom, has required
names. If they think that is too dificult then they must do
something about it.

Think of the chaos that will ensue when the RDF turns into a CFV and
then a vote requiring action. Whacko can say "Invalid vote - those
things are not names" and the comittee will have ten years of egg on
it's faces.

As I said -

You really want to watch what you say - it can come back and really

[Peter Duncanson]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:52:29 -0300, UCRM Monitor <me...@privacy.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:57:47 +0000, Peter Duncanson
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>
>> If someone who uses a nym for Usenet and other online purposes were
>to
>> give a first name and surname in response to a demand for a real
>name we
>> would still not know what their real name was. Something that looks
>like
>> a "real name" may not be that person's name as used on a credit
>card,
>> passport or other formal documents.
>
>
>> To be sure of getting a person's real "real name" would need them to
>> give some proof of identity, such as would be needed when opening a
>bamk
>> account. Surely that would be total overkill for Usenet UK voting
>> purposes?
>
>Maybe so.
>
>But I cannot help that. The comittee, in it's wisdom, has required
>names. If they think that is too dificult then they must do
>something about it.

It comes down to what you mean by "name".

[Owen Rees]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:52:29 -0300, UCRM Monitor <me...@privacy.net>

wrote in <almarsoft.7577...@news.aioe.org>:

>But I cannot help that. The comittee, in it's wisdom, has required
>names. If they think that is too dificult then they must do
>something about it.

I don't think the committe has required names, the guidelines are the
result of a vote not a committee decision as I understand the history.

One of the few roles of the committee is to interpret the meaning of the
wording of the guidelines in the event of a dispute as I understand it.

I have voted for committee members who I believe will make the right
decision should the need arise and I trust the current members to carry
out that responsibility should the need arise.

There are well defined process for changing all this if anyone believes
that it needs to be changed. All you have to do is to go through the RFD
process (easy) and persuade enough people to support your position
(perhaps not so easy).


--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

[Stacey]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:27:25 +0000, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> One of the few roles of the committee is to interpret the meaning
of the
> wording of the guidelines in the event of a dispute as I understand
it.


> I have voted for committee members who I believe will make the right
> decision should the need arise and I trust the current members to
carry
> out that responsibility should the need arise.

All very well, but -

Do you trust Jackson?

He has not been elected - and if it looks like his little flower
garden is going to be taken away I think you will find he is not so
reasonable.

What will the committee do if he claims the vote is invalid?

[Owen Rees]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:38:39 -0300, Stacey <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
<almarsoft.3001...@news.aioe.org>:

>On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:27:25 +0000, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> One of the few roles of the committee is to interpret the meaning
>of the
>> wording of the guidelines in the event of a dispute as I understand
>it.
>
>
>> I have voted for committee members who I believe will make the right
>> decision should the need arise and I trust the current members to
>carry
>> out that responsibility should the need arise.
>
>All very well, but -
>
>Do you trust Jackson?

Whether or not I trust Jackson seems to me to be irrelevant. Without
specifying the nature of the trust the question is meaningless anyway.

>
>He has not been elected - and if it looks like his little flower
>garden is going to be taken away I think you will find he is not so
>reasonable.

Not a vote in the same sense as the vote for the committee but there was
a vote to create the moderated group which gave Jackson control of the
endpoint to which submissions are directed. That could be changed by
another vote if any of those who spend so much effort moaning about the
moderation were to get their act together and put forward a sufficiently
well formulated proposal for replacing the moderators with a person or
group that can attract enough support.

>
>What will the committee do if he claims the vote is invalid?

You will have to ask the committee. I would expect them to require some
substance to back up the claim if it is to be considered seriously. I
doubt if a claim to own the meaning of 'name' in the context of the
guidelines will get much traction.

[kat]

I would like to think anyone making such objections would consider the wider
implications for the hierarchy, and rather than claim any particular vote is
invalid, present an RFD to fix the problem they perceive for the future.

For example, if Mr Jackson was to complain about some future vote being
invalid due to the use of "non real names", I would, personally, and in no
way reflecting the view of the committee as I do not know it, suggest that
the vote that created urcm is therefore similarly invalid and
that I would assume he wants the group removed, at least until such time as
we have fully discussed the meaning of "name", RFD'd the amendment to the
Guidelines, to make the wording clear, voted upon that, then had RFD(s) and
a vote for the creation of the group, a vote we could all feel totally
valid. Could take a while...


--
kat
>^..^<

[Molly Mockford]

At 08:12:08 on Mon, 11 Mar 2013, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<aq5hts...@mid.individual.net>:

>For example, if Mr Jackson was to complain about some future vote being
>invalid due to the use of "non real names", I would, personally, and in no
>way reflecting the view of the committee as I do not know it, suggest that
>the vote that created urcm is therefore similarly invalid and
>that I would assume he wants the group removed, at least until such time as
>we have fully discussed the meaning of "name", RFD'd the amendment to the
>Guidelines, to make the wording clear, voted upon that, then had RFD(s) and
>a vote for the creation of the group, a vote we could all feel totally
>valid. Could take a while...

To be fair, of course, there is no suggestion that Ian Jackson has any
intention of making such a complaint. The only one to express the idea
is the mis-spelt "UCRM Monitor", who presumably intended to type "URCM
Monitor" as in uk.net.news.moderation, but failed.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

[kat]

Molly Mockford wrote:
> At 08:12:08 on Mon, 11 Mar 2013, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote
> in <aq5hts...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> For example, if Mr Jackson was to complain about some future vote
>> being invalid due to the use of "non real names", I would,
>> personally, and in no way reflecting the view of the committee as I
>> do not know it, suggest that the vote that created urcm is therefore
>> similarly invalid and that I would assume he wants the group removed, at
>> least until such
>> time as we have fully discussed the meaning of "name", RFD'd the
>> amendment to the Guidelines, to make the wording clear, voted upon
>> that, then had RFD(s) and a vote for the creation of the group, a
>> vote we could all feel totally valid. Could take a while...
>
> To be fair, of course, there is no suggestion that Ian Jackson has any
> intention of making such a complaint. The only one to express the
> idea is the mis-spelt "UCRM Monitor", who presumably intended to type
> "URCM Monitor" as in uk.net.news.moderation, but failed.

Absolutely. I just used the example provided by that poster as a way of
showing how unlikely it was he ( or anyone else ) would ever consider doing
such a thing.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Clive D. W. Feather]

In message <almarsoft.7336...@news.aioe.org>, UCRM Monitor

<me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>If someone's name were a matter of importance in ordinary life, say,
>just for example, in court, they are not going to say "why today I am
>mentalguy2k8 or mcp or derderd...@hotmail.com. They give their
>name, or they are in serious trouble.

Or not, as the case may be. They need to give a name they are known by.

I don't recall a court case offhand, but a friend of mine stood for
Parliament under a completely different name to that by which we all
know and knew him. The Returning Officer accepted that. (He didn't
correctly read out the name when giving the results, but that's
irrelevant.)

When I gave evidence in a murder trial at the Old Bailey, the name I
gave the court was not the one on my birth certificate; I have never
executed a Deed Poll.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>

[Clive D. W. Feather]

In message <almarsoft.8785...@news.aioe.org>, UCRM Monitor
<me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>If I say "A or B" that quite clearly says that I know that A is not B.

Not necessarily. In formal logic, there is no problem with A being equal
to B, a subset of B, or a superset of B, and still making the statement
"A or B".

>The guidelines are specific - they do not say "name or pseudonym". The
>ballot does say (in essence) "A or B".
>
>They are not the same - the argument is that simple.

So pseudonym can be seen as a particular case of name, and then the
ballot both makes sense and conforms to the requirements.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.management, "Clive D. W. Feather" <cl...@davros.org> wrote:

>In message <almarsoft.7336...@news.aioe.org>, UCRM Monitor
><me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>If someone's name were a matter of importance in ordinary life, say,
>>just for example, in court, they are not going to say "why today I am
>>mentalguy2k8 or mcp or derderd...@hotmail.com. They give their
>>name, or they are in serious trouble.
>
>Or not, as the case may be. They need to give a name they are known by.
>
>I don't recall a court case offhand, but a friend of mine stood for
>Parliament under a completely different name to that by which we all
>know and knew him. The Returning Officer accepted that. (He didn't
>correctly read out the name when giving the results, but that's
>irrelevant.)
>
>When I gave evidence in a murder trial at the Old Bailey, the name I
>gave the court was not the one on my birth certificate; I have never
>executed a Deed Poll.

Indeed, I believe it's also true that you can obtain a passport in your
'commonly used name' regardless of what your Birth Certificate may say,
given sufficient evidence that people who know you use your 'commonly used
name'?

[Anonymous]

In article <almarsoft.7577...@news.aioe.org>

I think that is a rather sad young person poem.

Have you considered setting it to music?

[Wm...]

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:12:08 <aq5hts...@mid.individual.net>
uk.net.news.management kat <little...@hotmail.com>

>I would like to think anyone making such objections would consider the wider
>implications for the hierarchy, and rather than claim any particular vote is
>invalid, present an RFD to fix the problem they perceive for the future.
>
>For example, if Mr Jackson was to complain about some future vote being
>invalid due to the use of "non real names", I would, personally, and in no
>way reflecting the view of the committee as I do not know it, suggest that
>the vote that created urcm is therefore similarly invalid and
>that I would assume he wants the group removed, at least until such time as
>we have fully discussed the meaning of "name", RFD'd the amendment to the
>Guidelines, to make the wording clear, voted upon that, then had RFD(s) and
>a vote for the creation of the group, a vote we could all feel totally
>valid. Could take a while...

That reminded me of an american food type bear dancing about what to say
next.

Be proud of your inner american, kat

Shout, shout shout and presume your church will hear.

FFS, woman! you remind me of someone from a Zombie movie, kat

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

[kat]

"Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:12:08 <aq5hts...@mid.individual.net>
> uk.net.news.management kat <little...@hotmail.com>
>
>
>> I would like to think anyone making such objections would consider the wider
>> implications for the hierarchy, and rather than claim any particular vote is
>> invalid, present an RFD to fix the problem they perceive for the future.
>>
>> For example, if Mr Jackson was to complain about some future vote being
>> invalid due to the use of "non real names", I would, personally, and in no
>> way reflecting the view of the committee as I do not know it, suggest that
>> the vote that created urcm is therefore similarly invalid and
>> that I would assume he wants the group removed, at least until such time as
>> we have fully discussed the meaning of "name", RFD'd the amendment to the
>> Guidelines, to make the wording clear, voted upon that, then had RFD(s) and
>> a vote for the creation of the group, a vote we could all feel totally
>> valid. Could take a while...
>
> That reminded me of an american food type bear dancing about what to say next.
>
> Be proud of your inner american, kat

Oh I am. Believe me.

>
> Shout, shout shout and presume your church will hear.
>
> FFS, woman! you remind me of someone from a Zombie movie, kat

Do I? That sounds fun.

--
kat >^..^<

[Mike Fleming]

In article <MSBmRpGEO7RRFwGu@[127.0.0.1]>, "Wm..."

<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes:

> FFS, woman! you remind me of someone from a Zombie movie, kat

You remind me of someone whose brains have been eaten by zombies (who
subsequently died of malnutrition).

--
Mike Fleming

[Clive D. W. Feather]

In message <khqg9v$2ip$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, Tony

<to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>Indeed, I believe it's also true that you can obtain a passport in your
>'commonly used name' regardless of what your Birth Certificate may say,
>given sufficient evidence that people who know you use your 'commonly used
>name'?

In my multiple experiences, "sufficient evidence" was a letter from me.