Charles Walker voted FOR and his vote is not recorded; Speaker Fool may have confused the two 'Charles's. I've no record of Chuck voting on this proposal publically, but e may of course have done so privately.
On 27 June 2013 23:48, <games...@chuckcarroll.org> wrote: > > Proposal 344 (Yally) passes 5:3 with ehird, Steve, Michael, Yally, and > > Chuck FOR; Walker, Goethe, and omd AGAINST. This amends rule 343. It > > basically restores this poor rule to the original winning condition > > (most points), and adds a clause to resume the game next year. Yally > > gets 10 points by 332(a), Walker, Goethe, and omd get 5 by 332(b). > > ehird, Steve, Yally, Chuck, Walker, and omd get 5 by 332(c) since the > > last time they got points was 24 hours ago. > > > I'm pretty sure I voted against 344 - could you double-check that? (Alas, > I'm not currently at the location I'd need to be to access my copies of > outgoing mail, so I'm slightly less than 100% sure, but will be able to > check later.) > > Chuck > > > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
