RE: RFP Evaluation Team NDA

["Delta" <delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Before we discuss anything, you need to go and read your civics book
again.....
We are not a Democracy....we are a Republic.
Although, in fact, we are a democratic Republic.

You should go and read the definition of Republic.

Bo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 2:09 PM
> To: Delta; CVV Voting
> Subject: Re: RFP Evaluation Team NDA
>
>
>
> You've amply demonstrated in the archives of this list why you're on
> the committee, from just your last couple e-mails we learn: you find
> it annoying when citizens stand up for their rights and you don't
> think democracy is the best form of government.
>
> That, and you conveniently forget that even when there's just one bad
> choice, you can always vote NOTA.
>
> Please, feel free to reply, it helps set the public record straight
> about who is actually reasonable in this debate, and who would do the
> best job of critically evaluating claims by the Clerk or vendors, and
> ultimately, who really cares about the USA, the Constitution and our
> Bill of Rights, and who's willing to compromise our democracy, even
> just this one time!
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Delta wrote:
>
> > Open Government is fine to a point......
> > Annoyance government is counter-productive.
> >
> > Again, if someone doesn't think *exactly* like you then they are
> > worthless,
> > eh, Joe?
> > If they don't do what *you* think they should do, then they are
> > sellouts?
> > Bite me.
> >
> > Read my email.....
> > I said PITAs will get very little co-operation......I didn't say they
> > shouldn't exist.
> > Stop putting YOUR words into MY mouth.
> > That sucks and I think that much less of you.
> >
> > Libertarian philosophy is NOT necessarily ACLU philosophy.....not
> > by a long
> > shot.
> > Get over it.
> >
> > *I'm* on the Committee because I want to see the right things
> > done....not
> > stir up everything for the hell of it and my own aggrandizement.
> > You're welcome to discuss issues and if they are relevant. I'll
> > bring them
> > up to the committee as a whole.
> > But being a PITA will make me that much less interested in what you
> > have to
> > say.....right or wrong.
> >
> > that's the way the world works.....
> >
> > Bo
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:11 AM
> >> To: CVV Voting
> >> Subject: Re: RFP Evaluation Team NDA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think there's another corollary which is kiss up to the incompetent
> >> clerk's office too much and you lose all your credibility.
> >>
> >> Maybe he wanted to see it to see what the panel members signed away
> >> without uttering a peep.
> >>
> >> I would have thought that the Libertarians were as concerned about
> >> open governance as the ACLU, but I guess not.
> >>
> >> Seems like there no end to the "selling out" of the people going on
> >> in politics these days.
> >>
> >> I'll bet old King George found all the original American Patriots to
> >> be pains in the ass, too.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 14, 2006, at 3:51 AM, Delta wrote:
> >>
> >>> There is an axiom in public service/government:
> >>>
> >>> The bigger a pain in the ass you are....the less co-operation you
> >>> will get.
> >>> whether you're right or wrong.
> >>>
> >>> There's also a little corollary:
> >>> Rub elbows with PITAs and you will be considered a PITA, too.
> >>>
> >>> I think Neal is seeing ramifications from Crazy Al's actions....
> >>>
> >>> Of course, Neal isn't helping any....why is it necessary to see
> >>> these
> >>> non-disclosure documents? what the hell do they have to do with
> >>> choosing
> >>> election equipment????
> >>>
> >>> Not that I don't agree with the Open Meeting laws.....but I see
> >>> them abused
> >>> too many times.
> >>>
> >>> Like now.
> >>>
> >>> Everybody in CVV wants to have their two cents counted.....and for
> >>> what??
> >>> for crissakes, the county is only considering RENTING these things
> >>> for one
> >>> election.....and we have ONE choice.....how much affect could
> >>> ANYone have on
> >>> this decision??? And it's entirely temporary!! How much *more* will
> >>> you know
> >>> about this system if you use it once? and don't hand me that
> >>> conspiracy to
> >>> defraud the voter crap. EVERYONE involved wants a fair election.
> >>> It's just a
> >>> matter of what can make it easier without compromising integrity.
> >>>
> >>> If you people would give just a friggin iota...and let this process
> >>> continue
> >>> with *minimal* interference.....you could concentrate your
> >>> resources AND the
> >>> favors you curry....on the REAL DEAL.....when the County chooses a
> >>> system to
> >>> BUY.
> >>>
> >>> but, nooooo.......
> >>> Lets play like big shots and demand everything we can to show we
> >>> have
> >>> power.....because we can.
> >>> THAT's why democracy is a very bad form of government. (A quote
> >>> form the
> >>> great Roman Statesman, Seneca)
> >>>
> >>> Bo Shaffer
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Some Guy [mailto:someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 9:34 AM
> >>>> To: CVV Voting
> >>>> Subject: RE: RFP Evaluation Team NDA
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm thinking that you could have asked one of the members of the
> >>>> committee
> >>>> what they had agreed to do or signed and they might have shown
> >>>> you. Showing
> >>>> you the agreement divulges nothing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Members of this list have signed this document.
> >>>>
> >>>> SG
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Joe Pezzillo [mailto:jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 1:12 PM
> >>>> To: CVV Voting
> >>>> Subject: Re: RFP Evaluation Team NDA
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 10, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Neal McBurnett wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The team members also have already signed a confidentiality
> >>>>> agreement
> >>>>> of some sort.  (That will be modified now that they are using the
> >>>>> open
> >>>>> meetings procedures.)  I asked Liss for a copy, and he
> >>>>> suggested I'd
> >>>>> need to do an open records request for that.  Amazing - secrecy
> >>>>> about
> >>>>> the secrecy agreements!  It is so infectious it gets downright
> >>>>> silly
> >>>>> if you can retain your sense of humor.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I got your open records request right here:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>