SBFII Nominations Are In

lulu wrote:

Nah what that forum needs is

A: Feisty
B: Bibi
C: Luzzybabes

You're right Luzzybabes...what a slate that would be along with a couple of cases of ale.

Here are my candidates:
1. Groucho Marx

2. Curly Howard

3.Sarah Palin

4. Tweety Bird (THE REAL ONE)

fudgemeister wrote:

Four are up for 3 board positions. Sugar puddin, sunandroses, truusbuist, and wasforgas. Big changes are a comin'!! NOT!!!!!!!!

Call me crazy but these 4 sound like a reason AND a cure for an upset stomach!!

TxTammy wrote:

tonnie_rocca wrote:

---

And if anyone is wondering why former or not-active members are still interested in "that" forum, here is my personal opinion: because that forum used to be also OUR forum, less than a year ago full of promises, which were betrayed and stolen by a handful of people...

Funny how people forget...It was OUR forum. Too bad it was given away to people who were the first ones to quit when dyebat was working on making it an NPO. What a farce!

________________________________________________________________

And didn't one of the mods address this just today EW?? I went back and tried to find the comment,---but of course the thread, or maybe just that particular post, is no longer there. Interesting how things just disappear into the mist over there if they're the least bit controversial!! Anyhow, I believe it was concerning a question raised by Misha about the by-laws. She asked if the admin and staff had read the recent blog comments by lChris and dyebat concerning the bylaws----and was there going to be any comment on them? At least I'm pretty sure that was the gist of it. Kind of hard to get it right with nothing left there to refer to. Anyhow, I believe it was either truus or wasforgas who responded, wondering why Chris or dyebat should be interested in the bylaws there as both had resigned from the forum. The inference being that if you're no longer associated with EW,---why would you still care about it?? No consideration give to the long hours the two women spent formulating the by-laws to fit the new NPO requirements and how they just might care what happens to the forum they gave blood, sweat, and tears to. And certainly no consideration to the fact of how they were forced out and didn't leave of their own accord. They seriously believe we've all forgotten those minor details!!
THEY were the first to quit the forum last July when the going got tough, not Chris and dyebat who stayed during the hard times and toughed it out for all of us at OUR FORUM!!!

---

Wam, it's still there, under the thread "Non-profit status of forum".

But that's a detail with respect to all the oh-so true things you just stated, thanks...

WAMcKinley wrote:

TxTammy wrote:

tonnie_rocca wrote:

---

And if anyone is wondering why former or not-active members are still interested in "that" forum, here is my personal opinion: because that forum used to be also OUR forum, less than a year ago full of promises, which were betrayed and stolen by a handful of people...

Funny how people forget...It was OUR forum. Too bad it was given away to people who were the first ones to quit when dyebat was working on making it an NPO. What a farce!

________________________________________________________________

And didn't one of the mods address this just today EW?? I went back and tried to find the comment,---but of course the thread, or maybe just that particular post, is no longer there. Interesting how things just disappear into the mist over there if they're the least bit controversial!! Anyhow, I believe it was concerning a question raised by Misha about the by-laws. She asked if the admin and staff had read the recent blog comments by lChris and dyebat concerning the bylaws----and was there going to be any comment on them? At least I'm pretty sure that was the gist of it. Kind of hard to get it right with nothing left there to refer to. Anyhow, I believe it was either truus or wasforgas who responded, wondering why
Chris or dyebat should be interested in the bylaws there as both had resigned from the forum. The inference being that if you're no longer associated with EW,---why would you still care about it?? No consideration give to the long hours the two women spent formulating the by-laws to fit the new NPO requirements and how they just might care what happens to the forum they gave blood, sweat, and tears to. And certainly no consideration to the fact of how they were forced out and didn't leave of their own accord. They seriously believe we've all forgotten those minor details!!
THEY were the first to quit the forum last July when the going got tough, not Chris and dyebat who stayed during the hard times and toughed it out for all of us at OUR FORUM!!!

http://forum.susan-boyle.com/threads/13741-Non-profit-status-of-forum

here it is

tonnie_rocca wrote:

---

Wam, it's still there, under the thread "Non-profit status of forum".

But that's a detail with respect to all the oh-so true things you just stated, thanks...

______________________________________________________

Thanks. I found it. Not in the present list of threads there,---you have to search for it:


Originally Posted by Misha
I am interested in knowing if the Admin. has taken into consideration the suggestions in Dyebat's and lchris's blog for changes in the original mission statement--to assure the continuation of non-profit status for the Forum. I understand that the Admin. was sent a copy of this blog by Dyebat and lchris. I think that their suggestions should be of concern in order to keep the non-profit status of the Forum.

wasforgas:
Misha, I'm wracking my brains as to WHY Chris and or Dyebat are so concerned what happens on this forum as they have both resigned. Having said this, I would like to ease your mind that our NPO status will stay.IF we have to pay taxes, it will not be much...Please don't worry...we have consulted a couple of professionals.

nevermore wrote:

WAMcKinley wrote:

TxTammy wrote:

tonnie_rocca wrote:

---

And if anyone is wondering why former or not-active members are still interested in "that" forum, here is my personal opinion: because that forum used to be also OUR forum, less than a year ago full of promises, which were betrayed and stolen by a handful of people...

Funny how people forget...It was OUR forum. Too bad it was given away to people who were the first ones to quit when dyebat was working on making it an NPO. What a farce!

________________________________________________________________

And didn't one of the mods address this just today EW?? I went back and tried to find the comment,---but of course the thread, or maybe just that particular post, is no longer there. Interesting how things just disappear into the mist over there if they're the least bit controversial!! Anyhow, I believe it was concerning a question raised by Misha about the by-laws. She asked if the admin and staff had read the recent blog comments by lChris and dyebat concerning the bylaws----and was there going to be any comment on them? At least I'm pretty sure that was the gist of it. Kind of hard to get it right with nothing left there to refer to. Anyhow, I believe it was either truus or wasforgas who responded, wondering why
Chris or dyebat should be interested in the bylaws there as both had resigned from the forum. The inference being that if you're no longer associated with EW,---why would you still care about it?? No consideration give to the long hours the two women spent formulating the by-laws to fit the new NPO requirements and how they just might care what happens to the forum they gave blood, sweat, and tears to. And certainly no consideration to the fact of how they were forced out and didn't leave of their own accord. They seriously believe we've all forgotten those minor details!!
THEY were the first to quit the forum last July when the going got tough, not Chris and dyebat who stayed during the hard times and toughed it out for all of us at OUR FORUM!!!

http://forum.susan-boyle.com/threads/13741-Non-profit-status-of-forum

here it is

And the usual lapdogs had to put their two knowledgeable words in - CB and UK someone.

WAMcKinley wrote:

TxTammy wrote:

tonnie_rocca wrote:

---

And if anyone is wondering why former or not-active members are still interested in "that" forum, here is my personal opinion: because that forum used to be also OUR forum, less than a year ago full of promises, which were betrayed and stolen by a handful of people...

Funny how people forget...It was OUR forum. Too bad it was given away to people who were the first ones to quit when dyebat was working on making it an NPO. What a farce!

________________________________________________________________

And didn't one of the mods address this just today EW?? I went back and tried to find the comment,---but of course the thread, or maybe just that particular post, is no longer there. Interesting how things just disappear into the mist over there if they're the least bit controversial!! Anyhow, I believe it was concerning a question raised by Misha about the by-laws. She asked if the admin and staff had read the recent blog comments by lChris and dyebat concerning the bylaws----and was there going to be any comment on them? At least I'm pretty sure that was the gist of it. Kind of hard to get it right with nothing left there to refer to. Anyhow, I believe it was either truus or wasforgas who responded, wondering why Chris or dyebat should be interested in the bylaws there as both had resigned from the forum. The inference being that if you're no longer associated with EW,---why would you still care about it?? No consideration give to the long hours the two women spent formulating the by-laws to fit the new NPO requirements and how they just might care what happens to the forum they gave blood, sweat, and tears to. And certainly no consideration to the fact of how they were forced out and didn't leave of their own accord. They seriously believe we've all forgotten those minor details!!
THEY were the first to quit the forum last July when the going got tough, not Chris and dyebat who stayed during the hard times and toughed it out for all of us at OUR FORUM!!!

WAM--I am emphasizing your points for anyone who reads this from SBFII. WAM--you hit the nail on the head!

To all the members of SBFII who read this: Why do you think we are so passionate about the site we have either left, been thrown out of, or are in a twilight zone (Permanent Pre-mod) state. We all were there from the beginning and LOVED that site! You cannot imagine our discontent with your leadership! All of us have been wronged! We were treated unfairly, and unequally by your leadership! Your leadership has shown a terrible bias. They penalized some members for infractions, while allowing other members to get away with the same infractions.

That is why we do NOT go away! That site was as much OURS as it is YOURS!

A 'Faeces removal operative' (sh*t shoveller! ) cleans up after the last SBFII board meeting!

Admin wrote:

A 'Faeces removal operative' (sh*t shoveller! ) cleans up after the last SBFII board meeting!

___________________________________________________

Fancy names for mundane jobs seem to be in vogue these days!!

Admin wrote:

A 'Faeces removal operative' (sh*t shoveller! ) cleans up after the last SBFII board meeting!

EW! that smells.

RIK did NOT get a ballot!!!!

fudgemeister wrote:

RIK did NOT get a ballot!!!!

Isn't he the guy who donated a lot of money??

Even 'donations' can't buy you a vote! What kind of alleged corrupt dictatorship are they if you can't use bribery?

Admin wrote:

Even 'donations' can't buy you a vote! What kind of alleged corrupt dictatorship are they if you can't use bribery?

Excellent post--fudge the yapdog!

Admin wrote:

Even 'donations' can't buy you a vote! What kind of alleged corrupt dictatorship are they if you can't use bribery?

Excellent post--fudge yapdog #2!

Admin wrote:

Even 'donations' can't buy you a vote! What kind of alleged corrupt dictatorship are they if you can't use bribery?

Excellent post---fudge yapdog #3!

fudgemeister wrote:

RIK did NOT get a ballot!!!!

OK, that is hysterical, isn't he an honorary susan fan? hahahahahaha ok that's too funny

It's interesting to note that the 'staff' are claiming no conflict of interest exists between having a particular person as admin of both their own site and the 'official site', when there's an example of such conflict of interest just today. It seems that a 'promotion' for their own store has been posted on the 'official site'. Normally, such things most certainly wouldn't be allowed on an 'official site', but when the admin is the same person on both sites rules can be bent. So basically, having the same person as admin on both sites allows the 'non-profit' site to benefit financially from the 'official site'. That's a conflict of interest if ever I saw one.

And the results are in! After running the votes through their Quantumdiscomtabulator Adding Machine, the scrutineers received the results through a vision in a piece of toast! Shockingly, the winner is 'Papa God'! What a surprise!