Sideshow Bob

FWIW I told him I was satisfied with what the direction of the entire EB at that time, that being holding the line not giving concessions. The primary source of that direction was BT and TK. The initiatives HE discussed exclusive to him, while non-specific "sounded" reasonable enough. Fortunately he was then but one of the members, and with limited power, and not during negotiations. There's no reason not to be cordial with the guy and I opposed him in his previous electoral endeavors...he knew that and I knew that. I simply don't believe he belongs in a position of power during negotiations especially compared to other candidates. If you feel compelled to deny jumpseats, have at it...that says volumes about you, whoever you are that is. Nice hiding in the shadows, huh tough guy?

say that again

I see your fan club is growing!

Sideshow Bob

They are dedicated...but not nearly as much as you, my chubby stalker.

Jonathan E

Bob,

As a fan (even though I'm a progressive), I agree with you about SF. I'm mystified why Andy Koch supports him. My question, what is your opinion of our negoiaters LE and whatshisname?

Tyman

She's smokin hot!

Sideshow Bob

While they perhaps wouldn't have been my first choices, I was briefed that all things considered they were the most solid choices of those who were considered or stepped up. I think/hope that they, unlike SF have a higher standard of largely selfless service, and the ability to separate ego and personal agendas from the best interest of the group. LE has been very involved in the process developing the political football that is the NPRM, and HH has for the most part been a level headed broker over several administrations. They are overall highly regarded, and apparently agreeable to the entire EB...and somebody has to do it, right?

Look...everything is political, everything else is politics. That being said, I strongly believe that DM and EG have stepped up, not because of aspirations of power and ability to evade line flying (like SF and MM have), but out of a sense of desperation of where our not-so-beneavolent employer and certain elements of our union are taking us...they set aside their instincts not to become political cannon fodder and to step up with a resume of real world line and union experience that neither MM or SF could even imagine.

Like everything else uttered, typed and thought, these are MY beliefs, just like everyone else here. It often baffles me how my stated opinion (no more or less valid than anyone's here) elicits so much hysteria (or in CP's case virtual stalking).

But I suppose it could be because I shine a light on things others would prefer left in the dark, and they prefer that they stay in the shadows...or people just hate cartoon villains. Either way, it is what it is.

Swedish Blender

SS, I haven't heard anyone in base say that.
YMMV

Pilot7576

Guys...

Whatever you know or think you know about the candidates for office, threatening jumpseat denial for support or lack thereof for "your" candidate is not the way to go.

I would prefer you base any jumpseat denial by examining the JA list for those that have accepted such (not JA2) since the furlough. While banking extra coin, those individuals can obviously afford now to buy a ticket instead of jumpseating.

Let's leave personal feelings and vitriol out of the election. Everyone has a vote and it's better to speak via the ballot box than semi-anonymous forums.

JMO

Pilot7576

990Convair

While you are waiting for your felt "me" to be delivered, since I used FedEx, I will already be naked in bed with mine, giving it a creepy stare.

Priority 3

Bob M. has some obvious anger issues, as evidenced by the pages and pages of his rants. Would never deny him a seat based on union-related differences.