Texsox

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 8, 2006 -> 08:53 AM) I'll take Rex on. When is the next election and when are the debates and how does this all work? Great!

I wonder how many people carry a basic survival kit in their cars? I don't mean one of those survival in a can kits you see in outdoor stores. He could have survived nicely with just a few things, and they could have fit in a coffee can. First off, rule of 3. You can survive 3 minutes without oxygen 3 hours exposed to freezing temps 3 days without water 3 weeks without food Based on this anyone that keeps some extra food in their car and no water is missing the point. Exposure: Keep you fuel tank near full. Running you car's heater is a great way to stay warm. Just remember to keep the exhaust clear. Add a space blanket for everyone who may be in your vehicle. Even when going from heated garage to heated work, have clothes available for the outdoor temp. Keep a beanie, heavy socks, and mittens available. This will reduce your chances of frostbite. Water: It will probably freeze but have some available in your car and some means to warm it up. Sometimes a candle will work. A small backpacking stove works even better. A metal coffee can and esbitt tablets will melt enough snow to keep you hydrated for a very long time and costs next to nothing. Visibility: Make yourself big. Have some means of signaling. Perhaps an old cd which you can site through the hole and it will reflect light a long ways.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 8, 2006 -> 08:40 AM) Besides, I don't believe in run-off elections. Then why did you run in the first place? This was a primary, pure and simple. Aren't you now mocking the people who took the time to vote you into the finals? A lot of people spent a lot of time figuring out this system. Ideas where brought up, examined, some used, some discarded, until this two step process was implimented. The goal, from the beginning, was having two or three candidates square off in debate. Now you basically are saying piss on it, I'm going home. And yes, it was mostly mods. That's what the mods do. We spend a lot of time and effort building this site. We try and develop concepts that will engage the members, keep them coming back. This was conceived to elevate debate and an intelligent level of discussion. We could have, and maybe we should, have a how many votes can I get poll. Now the choice is yours, finish what you started, or quit part way through.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 8, 2006 -> 08:09 AM) GP has declared he will not run in a runoff. The rules had called for one. We did not set up rules for this particular problem. Our options are: 1. Just end it here. 2. Rex runs uncontested in the runoff. 3. The thrid place vote getter, Tex, runs against Rex. Thing is, the competition is fun, but it was never about that. I just wanted to give a forum for real political debate. Apparently, that was not everyone else's motivation. Fourth option. Since Rex is almost a classic Democrat, why not draft a conservative or have PA run against him? Fifth option. Since GP is simply a screen name, form a campaign team and run for him. Hell, that mirrors real world nicely in some cases. I think the second round would be interesting if we built on the previous debates. Allowing each campaign team to read over and devise a strategy based on the other candidate's opinions. Better develop themes. That would probably work best in a PA v. Rex campaign. I think we should also give GP time to rethink is withdrawl. Perhaps he will honor the voter's decision to place him in the second round.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 8, 2006 -> 08:28 AM) I'm done with this conversation. Your choice. I believe it would be interesting if you would pick a VP candidate and actually engage in the process. You know you have a base of supporters, see if you can expand on those and actually win the honorary title. You were quick to add it to your sig when you thought you won, why not try for real?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 8, 2006 -> 08:19 AM) And, in case I wasn't clear, I'm not going to run in any run-off second-election. You guys can have Rex and Tex do that if they want and the site wants, or you can let the results stand, but I'm just not interested so I decline to participate in any second-rounds. I wrote a platform and put work into that, for what it's worth, but yeah I felt hostility and I think it's absurd that anybody would say that there wasn't any or that I'm being paranoid. "Child" this and "teenager" that. I can sortof see your points about the PMing but I didn't do anything wrong and besides, it isn't as if the Adults were going to vote for a child anyway. Still, I accept your apology and know you meant no harm. I don't think anyone here had a problem with the pming, it was not being involved in the process much. Almost zero effort in the debates. That was mocking the efforts of those who actually spent time putting this together. My perception is you said screw the formalities and debate, I'm just interested in seeing how many votes I can get. Again, it is a great lesson in how America works. Candidates are elected for stuff other than their beliefs, opinions, solutions, whatever. And there was always going to be a second round, the fact you didn't even take the time to read the rules, once again goes to the heart of any controversy.

Sorry if you are feeling some hostility, I was merely pointing out the process was conceived as a vehicle for exchanging ideas and intellectual debate, something you felt compelled to skip. That is why there were actual rules for the debates, that some people here took a lot of time and effort to develop questions and others took the time to write thought out opinions. You took the time to PM people with a vote for me! Congratulations. Did you happen to notice there weren't any baseball questions in the debates? No favorite bands discussions? The intent was to follow a political election that would be purely decided by opinions. You successfully avoided that to have the most people check your name off. That mocks what many people here were trying to accomplish. Something a step above the usual internet forum polls. You managed to bring it down to that level.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 8, 2006 -> 07:58 AM) I have no interest in that. I think that's nonsense. Rex can have the Presidency if that's what you guys want to do. I'll just bask in the election itself. Doesn't matter to me. And that's the point. The interest was the debates, policy, the future, not just some popularity contest.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 8, 2006 -> 07:50 AM) Originally, the rules called for a runoff for Prez. But with only 5 candidates, that seemed silly, so the idea was brought up to have the top 2 vote-getters (Rex, GP) each select a VP, and then we have the runoff between those two complete tickets. So, Rex and GP, if you are both willing to do it that way, I'll set it up. Why bother? One of the problems with letting High School kids run is their lack of knowledge about world events and solutions, so we get positions like he expressed above. What's the point?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 11:02 PM) Less corporate influence. No hippie influence. Common sense. Compromise the Economy as little as possible but concede that some compromises must be made. Combat carbon dioxide and pollution both because of global warming and because it's the right thing to do. Remake the FDA and EPA so as to prevent outside influences from interfering with what should be purely scientific. Push for a hybridization of public transit within ten years and of American society within twenty. Funding for it, too. More trees. Less smoke. That is all. I am not answering questions. Or provocation. I will reply via PM to any intellectually and honestly curious potential voter but I expect any questions to please be PMed. QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 11:03 PM) I would raise taxes as necessary and as approved by Congress. But I wouldn't raise one penny more than necessary and I'd only raise if spending cuts alone can't help balance budgets. QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 11:04 PM) I am in agreement with NorthSide. Nothing on the Iraq War. Great job expressing your views in the debates. Next time we can just skip an intelligent exchange of ideas and just see who can spam the most votes. It's a great lesson in why we wind up with the leaders we do. The runoff is for President. You can pick a running mate and you and your VP nomination will run against Rex for President. Of course that will involve Rex expressing his views and you ducking and spamming.

QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 7, 2006 -> 11:02 PM) My vote went to the man sitting in 2nd place right now. Which of his positions did you most identify with? Iraq? Environment? Education?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 7, 2006 -> 10:56 PM) I'm not unknown. I just think it's rather clear that I'm unpopular with some people around here. Which isn't to complain or anything. Just saying. I have a lot more friends than I thought I did at this site, though, since I got quite a few PMs urging me on in addition to the ones I sent. It certainly wasn't your debate posts. The anti-establishment vote. I hadn't considered that. Everyone else running is, or was, a mod. Interesting observation.

The oldsters in the crowd will remember the downsizing trends of the seventies and eighties. If there is a department of ten people and someone notices is runs just fine with 7 or 8, guess what happens? So be careful what you wish for.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 7, 2006 -> 10:18 PM) Third place is fine by me. Better than I worried I'd do. It's like the Iowa Caucasus and the unknown picks up traction while a supposed front runner bites the dust.

What happened to my chances to win the soxtalk election?

Even worse than Rodman in a Bulls uniform.

This is a tragedy, but an avoidable one. When travelling through wilderness areas, whether by foot or by vehicle, giving someone your travel plans including when you expect to return, is rule one. It is almost always better to stay with your shelter.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 7, 2006 -> 08:13 AM) what a political stunt have a good one! Exactly what I was thinking Happy Birthday!!

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 09:53 PM) I agree with all of those thoughts. I think the people that voted for me hate all of you and by default HAD to vote for me You had the conservative vote about locked up.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 09:40 PM) who knew this great conversation would arise from all of this? I hope Greg understands, at least from my perspective, I don't think PMing people is a bad idea...I almost did it. So in a lot of ways I think it was innovative, much like when I made the first sig or started the ask PA thread. I think the debatable issue is how far is it ok to intrude on people's lives? what exactly designates intrusion? discuss. This mirrored real world elections in more ways that I thought. I used a kind of formula that basically started out with name recognition and subtracted negative energy because I felt that thousands of posts would be more important than the debates. Based on that I felt that NorthSide and Rex would be the two strongest candidates. I failed to consider a direct PM campaign because I felt it wasn't appropriate. I didn't think GP had the name recognition in the buster of the other candidates. I felt PA and I had higher negative energy which dropped us out. I know a few of the people who voted for me had actually read all the threads and posts and for that I was truly humbled.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 09:31 PM) I hardly consider electioneering to be spam. I guess it depends on how seriously someone takes the actual voting versus debating the issues. To me, the actual counting of the votes was secondary to the debates and reading the well thought out positions. You seemed to put more importance on electioneering. Which is an excellent commentary on why we get the people elected we do. To me receiving a PM from someone I don't normally receive PMs from and asking them to look at a thread and vote is spamming. It is at least close enough for me to not want to do it.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 09:25 PM) I didn't have a problem with it FWIW. Usually I listen to the recorded messages from some random person naming each of my registered voter in my family to vote for a certain party. The problem that a couple candidates have is we are mods and from time to time we have suspended accounts for spamming members. It would be difficult for us to talk about no spamming rigfht after spamming.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 09:11 PM) It ain't over. Most of the regular posters, and honestly, the people I was most interested in, have voted, from here on out, it's just not that important to me. As far as I am concerned Rex is the winner and I applaud him. I agreed with many of his positions. If some more people are coerced into voting, that's wonderful.

BTW, RexKick**s may have beat me, but I totally would have kicked WinoDJ's ass.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 08:52 PM) We're going for realism right? My final campaign strategy: Could you please capitalize Texan For a brief moment I thought of starting a PM campaign and decided I won't. I don't like spam and I believe most people do not like spam. I am glad PA, in a joking manner went negative, I am glad GP out hustled everyone, I wish that an openly Gay candidate could do this well in more places around the country than just cyber-elections. We have many vignettes here which made the process worthwhile.