Comments on: A touch of Tehran taints the AUGI Special Election

By: ralphg

ralphg — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:56:21 +0000

Suppressing free speech during elections is normal government behaviour here in Canada. Both federal and provincial governments regularly impose election spending limits on advertising, and then the courts regularly strike them down.

By: Steve G.

Steve G. — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:41:29 +0000

i just proposed the following question. I wonder if it will get past the censors/moderators:

Do you believe the total number of posts a candidate has made to AUGI’s technical forums in the past is a good indicator to determine if a person is qualified to be on the Board of Director’s?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:59:58 +0000

Implementing rule #7 would be a death blow to AUGI if they did it on anyone with any sort of exposure in the industry. They’d find out real quick who is really in charge…the members.

You know the saying ‘any press is good press’, well sometimes bad press is really bad for business.

By: Steve G.

Steve G. — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:43:09 +0000

Thanks for this post. Keep it up. I am fed up with the current BOD’s heavy hand.

I’m also curious to why one member was selected as being qualified for the elections when he has only posted 3 times to a technical forum.

By: Brenda

Brenda — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:38:44 +0000

I’ve already had one question (one looking for clarification) rejected. What’s the point of having a forum where you can’t have a dialog. Ask a question, we’ll censor it and post it if we feel like it, you may or may not get it answered, but if the answer isn’t satisfactory or unclear, you can’t ask a follow up question.

it’s a sham.

By: R.K. McSwain

R.K. McSwain — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:49:08 +0000

Regarding #4. Note that if the “special election forum moderators” don’t like your question, it will be rejected or worse, reworded and posted.

Also, rule #6 can be enforced no matter where the conversation takes place, by simply implementing rule #7.