Ugh. Don't get me started.

After thinking about it, you are probably right about DN's comment. Not so sure about PM's.

Actually, I'm more concerned with individuals and/or groups that aren't members of a council getting involved in council elections.

No idea who you are talking about, but I do not have a camp of supporters. No call centers, and door to door election officials. Just me and my phone and key board. :D

Actually, I'm thinking of a pilot who is a self appointed watchdog from a different council, not necessarily this questionaire.

As far as this questionaire is concerned. Not such a big deal. However, if the author was a supporter of one or more of the candidates, it would have been nice, in the interest of full disclosure, if he had identified himself as such in his mass e-mailing.

Reroute,

That is one of my concerns too. Despite the contentions of some that mine are somehow pro-moak vents (the ususal scream of the anti-moaks), my concerns are with the process that was used. Maybe it was all above board, but since it was anonymous, how do we know?

Lets face it, this is "somebody's" survey (RM?). He owns it in the sense that he coordinated it. helped craft the questions and helped distribute it even prior to the blast email. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, "somebody" is not a candidate. If you back up a couple of pages here and read that disclaimer that alpa puts at the top, it clearly says the email is being sent by a "candidate."

Great. No issues so far. Just tell me who the candidate is because I was told something was sent to me by a candidate, and I have no idea who sent it to me. Further, I have no idea what relationship that candidate has with the survey's author. Did the anonymous candidate have an opportunity to mess with his answers after he saw everyone else's for example? Did he help craft the questions too?

So bottom line, while I don't think anything nefarious probably went on, I have no way of knowing. Nor does anyone else. Despite the survey answers, if I at least knew who sent it I would be able to know that I don't trust his judgement and headwork enough for him to represent me. That's my beef as I don't believe the survey answers are all that valuable. They are rhetoric. Actions matter. Words don't.

Back to real Saturday discussion, How about college gameday!!

Go Horns!!!

Why don't you take the time to email each of the candidates and ask them if any of their answers were changed after they were submitted, or if they changed any of their answers after seeing someone else's answers?

My guess is that, if anything like that had happened, one or more of the candidates would be screaming about it. As it is, all of the candidates who participated (which is all but one) gave their approval for the email to be sent as a campaign email, and the only people who seem to be complaining or upset about it are people who were not involved. It sounds to me like your concerns are unfounded and overstated.

Actually, you are missing my point. I suggested that whichever candidate DID have access to the survey to e-mail it out could have changed his answers based on the answers of others (whereas the others did not have that chance), not that he changed the other's answers. And even then, I'm not suggesting that he did that, only that he placed himself in a position where that possibility exists.

So put my concerns to bed. You helped write the survey. I like your thoughts on investing and even plan to sign up for the next course, but as a survey author...well I like your thoughts on investing.

So since you did not have the authority to send it out, who did? That's all I am asking. Every candidate I have talked to so far denies that he did. I do not understand why it's such a secret. And I don't see the point of tradng one group that likes to keep secrets for another that also does (or simply can't tell the truth). Maybe I am an idealist.

Bama's going DOWN.. by THE UT... not that thing from Austin:D

Get on the Lane train!