Proposed voting rules for future AMG's

[mitch777]

Hello Forum Members,

First I'd like to say that I am looking forward to AMG San Diego! While it was not my first choice, the location is secondary to meeting everyone. It is the people of these forums that began this great annual event to meet one another and remember those who we have lost.

Next I would like to make clear is that my proposed voting rules are in the interest of fairness to all. No sour grapes here in the least. Really.

Lastly, I would like to say that I purposely waited to post this until after the voting was closed for AMG 2014. Didn't want to upset the apple cart so to speak already in progress.

So...
My understanding is that this has been discussed by many members over the years privately but nobody has put forth a proposal so I'm taking the chance of getting beat up by bringing up a voting rule change. Please try to be gentle. I'm a frail old pozzie and bruise easily.

1. I propose to restrict voting to HIV+ members only with the exception of an adult care giver voting for a child.

I am by no means suggesting restricting who can attend.

My reasoning for this is when spouses or friends vote in tandem with a poz member it creates a voting block that is inherently unfair. It also seems that there are those who don't lend support to others on the forums and only post when it comes to voting. Pretty easy to see by looking at posting histories.

The question is a matter of fairness to active members of these forums. Should I have my hubby and friends become member only to cast a vote for my destination of choice? I think not. Then it would become a "who can round up the most people" thing.

It might not be an issue if there were several hundred people voting but with 25 or 30 total votes a "voting block" of friends and family can have a strong impact on the results.

I would also like to suggest that the next posting for voting preferences for future AMG locations, a statement should be included that says' "Please refrain from voting if you have absolutely no intentions on attending AMG". I understand peoples plans can change and I am not making that reference.

Just a suggestion.

Sincerely,
m.

PS- I'm looking forward to meeting everyone in San Diego, members, spouses, friends, and family.

[Lou-ah-vull]

Difficult to enforce and define, but understandable.  Over the years since we started the "selection" of the site for the AMG has always generated controversy. 

When we moved to the election process, this helped somewhat but as you noted the process was somewhat affected by voting from persons who were not really going to attend the event or those with a casual, but not serious interest in the event.  Again, not easy to identify or enforce if we wanted some kind of rule.

Maybe the best process would be to use a voting process to identify three cities and then have a pre-selected committee of three active, participating, posting Forum members (and preferably at least two who have consistently attended the AMG or at least tried to attend) investigate the three choices, arrive at a decision and then announce the site.  This would allow some exploration of possible hotel choices as well as date choices. 

Again, no process is perfect and this current one has worked better than any other we have tried...but it might help boost attendance at AMG.

I should quickly add that I have enjoyed EVERY AMG I have attended (I have been all of them with the exception of Toronto and London) regardless of the method of selection and regardless of controversy.

Gary

[mitch777]

Gary,

I certainly agree that no process is perfect. I'm just not sure that I agree that limiting voting to HIV+ folks would be an issue. Enforceable? Easy.

As far as preventing people voting with no plans to attend... that, I agree would not be enforceable but just thought a statement at the opening would help.

Leaving the final choice to 3-5 individuals could create even more problems IMHO. The key words that you used were "active members" and that is why I proposed what I did.

If the best process used so far is the current one as you stated, I am only trying to tweek it with one additional voting eligibility requirement. I was simply trying to suggest a step that might make the process more equitable to the active members of the forums. I believe these forums are about support and active members are the lifeblood. Without them, the forums would cease to exist and AMG with it.

I too look forward to what ever destination is chosen. The experience of Chicago in meeting fellow members will be forever remembered with fondness. I cherished every moment and every person that I met. I'm looking forward to many more.

m.

[Basquo]

I'm against limiting voting to HIV+ forum members. My husband has attended several AMGs and is not a forum member, but if he was, I'd like for his vote to count. Chances are good we wouldn't vote for the same location anyway

I can think of 2 other non-poz members whose vote should count should they choose to vote. One has attended 4 AMGs in the past and the other I'd like to meet in person should the opportunity arise.

[mitch777]

I'm against limiting voting to HIV+ forum members. My husband has attended several AMGs and is not a forum member, but if he was, I'd like for his vote to count. Chances are good we wouldn't vote for the same location anyway

I can think of 2 other non-poz members whose vote should count should they choose to vote. One has attended 4 AMGs in the past and the other I'd like to meet in person should the opportunity arise.

I get that Basqou but I don't agree. If those who have expressed discontent with the voting process as it stands remain silent I will be happy to abide by the way it's been and will no longer will listen to further complaints. No big deal. Just trying to help animosity building.

My husband is not a member of the forums either. He attended with me last year.  Your point of contention  about those non-poz people that you wish to meet is not dismissed by any means. Should they vote? I think not but they are more than welcome to attend and I would like to meet them in person myself.

This is not about restricting attendance but allowing a fair vote for active members. This is not about the past. It's about going forward in fairness to those who contribute to the forums.

I really hope this thread does not become a battle of alliances, but rather a discussion of how we can eliminate negativity in a kind and thoughtful way.

Everyone that mentions your name has had nothing but love spoken. I can't wait to meet you and you husband myself. I hope the same holds true to you. We are all in this together.

EDIT: I'm also not shy about calling it like it is if someone steps over the line on my behalf.

[bocker3]

I get that Basqou but I don't agree. If those who have expressed discontent with the voting process as it stands remain silent I will be happy to abide by the way it's been and will no longer will listen to further complaints. No big deal. Just trying to help animosity building.

My husband is not a member of the forums either. He attended with me last year.  Your point of contention  about those non-poz people that you wish to meet is not dismissed by any means. Should they vote? I think not but they are more than welcome to attend and I would like to meet them in person myself.

This is not about restricting attendance but allowing a fair vote for active members. This is not about the past. It's about going forward in fairness to those who contribute to the forums.

I really hope this thread does not become a battle of alliances, but rather a discussion of how we can eliminate negativity in a kind and thoughtful way.

Everyone that mentions your name has had nothing but love spoken. I can't wait to meet you and you husband myself. I hope the same holds true to you. We are all in this together.

EDIT: I'm also not shy about calling it like it is if someone steps over the line on my behalf.

Frankly, I think simple is best.  The last couple of years have been the least controversial.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  There is not a process that will not have complaints. 
BTW - a quick review of the votes and I only saw one from someone not +.  Folks have been pulling that up for years - I think it is a red herring. 

My two cents.

Mike

[mitch777]

Frankly, I think simple is best.  The last couple of years have been the least controversial.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  There is not a process that will not have complaints. 
BTW - a quick review of the votes and I only saw one from someone not +.  Folks have been pulling that up for years - I think it is a red herring. 

My two cents.

Mike

It's broke but I give up. Thank you for your input Mike.

[J.R.E.]

Here's a thought.  This certainly may not be favorable to all, but it's just a thought.

Why not vote for 5 or 6 cities that will ALWAYS host the AMG, ( once every five to six years) and let it revolve.

It could be past locations etc.   Maybe one in Seattle,  San Francisco,  Chicago,  Washington, and Atlanta,  ( we need one down south)

I am only throwing this out there. This way there won't be a vote on location, as it is already predetermined, where the next one will be held, and it will always revolve.

Once again, it doesn't have to be these cities. Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver could be in there as one of the cities.

It may help make it easier for the planners also, as far as getting the hotel set up. It could very well be the same hotel in the same city, once every 5 or 6 years.

This may help to illuminate location issues. That leaves it to just selecting/voting for the 5 or 6 hosting AMG cities.

I mean lets face it. Not all of us are going to be able to attend all the AMG's, no matter where they are held or what time of the year they are held. ( Money is  tight for many of us) If they are held at approximately the same time/ week/ month, people may be able to plan future AMG's more easily, and possible save money for these future trips.

Anyway, Just rambling....

Ray

[mitch777]

I like that! Well worth a conversation.
Thanks Ray! You lifted my spirit.

Edit: brilliant solution in my humble opinion.

[Lou-ah-vull]

For what it's worth, I still like my committee idea.  Remember, the committee evaluates the top three choices from the voting process.  There is still a vote but then we actually evaluate the cities and see if there is something workable for us.

No matter what we do, I will still always try to attend the AMG.  Just trying to help.

Gary

[weasel]

      Howdy Folks ,
                               I for one don't care for a  " Revolving "    City .

        Our neighbors had a revolving home , once seen no need to see again ,
        When I spend my monies I want to see something I have not seen ,or at
        least not in the past three years 
       
         San Diego Works out well for me this year , I will spend my 60 Birthday
         either with AMG or at HOME in Las Vegas 

        On the TOPIC at hand ..................
        I've been to four ?   AMG's     enjoyed every moment of every trip .

        But before the final picks were made  I always wondered where the
       " CROWD "     was planning on going ?     
           What if they did not approve ?    OH     , That's right they just boycott
        the group until the next year when they get their choice " Picked " 

         Sounds kind of mean ?   It may be . But don't fool yourself's to be
         thinking I am the only one that " KNOWS "  .    It common knowledge .

         Anyway I will chime in again soon to see how this plays out , No doubt
        a skeleton  will fall out of my closet 

                                                    Love you all , Weasel   

[phildinftlaudy]

Disclaimer: I have been "coordinating" the site preference / site voting for the past three AMGs (Washington DC, Chicago, and San Diego), so I may be just a bit biased....   that said....

I think that there will always be either flaws with a process; issues; or suggestions for improvement. Heck, in business, operations managers would love to have a 0% error rate and 100% efficiency - however, that is just not realistic or attainable, so they know they have to settle with getting errors down as far as possible and efficiency as high as possible.

Will any of the suggestions given bring us to a 0% error rate or 100% efficiency? I doubt it.

I think it is inherent in any voting process that there will be numerous factors that affect someone's vote. I also think that in most democracies, where voting occurs, there are many things that go on behind the scenes to try to influence votes and move the vote in one direction or another..... this is usually called lobbying.

Many times we see here in the U.S. where Senators and Congresspersons never vote on an issue - until they are swayed by their colleagues to cast a vote (even if that issue has no impact on the particular area they serve)...

I say the above because I feel that the current process - which involves members having the opportunity to express three locations where they would like to see AMG held and then those preferences being narrowed down to the top three locations given by members being voted on to arrive at a single location allows for input of all members and comes closest to selecting a location that the majority of members who take the time to express a preference and give a subsequent vote are supportive of....

Of course, during the process, there are members who reach out to other members and ask them to support a certain location (even if those members may not be attending).... but this option/action is available to anyone to do.... the "lobbying" piece; the selling others on a location piece..... it is part of the process.

I suppose we could implement any of the processes suggested - we could also say that if a person has not provided a location preference in the "preference thread" that they are then not able to vote on a location when the "Location vote" thread is opened - Unfortunately, I think any of the suggested methods, as well as the one I just presented, may lower the number of people who participate in the voting process.

Whenever additional conditions are applied to a voting process, it severely impacts on participation. One only has to look at various voting/election processes around the world to see the truth in what I just said.

I don't think we will ever arrive at a point where we have a 0% error rate, 100% acceptance or efficiency rate... but, I do think that the process we have right now is one that provides

• the widest range of input on a potential location (we had 24 potential locations for this year -including Ryan Gossling's butt) - if someone had a location preference, all the person had to do was list that as a preference - and if they really wanted to see if rise to the top 3 - they could interact with other members to build their case and gain support for that location
• the ability of all members - + and non+ to contribute - the only requirement being that the person be a member - sometimes through this process, we see members that may not have been active on the boards become even more involved
• a high degree of transparency - people are able to see, preference by preference and vote by vote which locations are being stated and which locations are receiving the votes - this encourages members to engage other members and make the case for where AMG might be held.....afterall, the location for AMG is not about satisfying one member or even two - it is about gaining support of members for the location and then those members actively voting - regardless of whether the member is + or - and regardless of how active the member is on the boards. Sometimes, members who may not be as active of posters on the boards are still very supportive of AMG - and most active on this event and this board...we all have those areas of the boards that we participate in more than others - for some it is the Living With, others the Research, others the Off Topic, and, yes, for others the Forums Gatherings....

I definitely think this is a good topic to discuss and I am not trying to discourage an open discussion because that is how ideas are generated that may lead to improvements. I just wanted to state that I don't think there is ever going to be an ideal way.

For me, I have places that I would like to see AMG held - if they don't garner enough ticks on the preferences - well, than I know that while the location may be somewhere I want to go, it isn't necessarily somewhere that others want to go - Same with the voting process.... And, if a location doesn't get voted for that I want...I always (or hopefully know) that there will always be next year to suggest it again... This is the nice thing about AMG being held in different locations rather than a static select few areas - one knows that if it keeps being suggested, one of these years it probably will be selected (and if it is never selected, than it must not be a location that people want or are able to go to).

Just my thoughts...
I look forward to the continued discussion and hearing others thoughts and ideas.

Phil
(who enjoys the process of selecting site preferences and than seeing the voting for location - knowing the whole time that there is behind the scenes interaction going on to try to move the vote one way or another... because in the end, one of the primary objectives of these Forums and AMG (at least as I see it) is about creating interaction - whether it be here virtually or via people interacting outside of the virtual Forum environment.)

 

P.S. I know Jeff is extremely disappointed that Ryan Gossling's butt wasn't selected.

[bocker3]

Well said Phil. 

This topic has come up before..... I still do not see the issue with family and friends voting "as a block", so long as they are members.  Especially when the "block" people are usually referring to have attended many AMG's.  Personally, the more voting participation the better - rather than trying to suppress voters that may not vote to one's liking (where have we seen this taking place....... Oh yeah, any number of Red states)
And remember, I voted for New Orleans.  I probably will not attend in San Diego - not because I didn't get my choice, but because I have 3 vacations scheduled for next year and San Diego is probably too far for a quick trip.  Although one never knows what I may do......  LOL!

M

[Lou-ah-vull]

Mike, I will certainly put the squeeze on you to attend.  San Diego is a Soutbwest city and an affordable flight even across the country.  Hate to have AMG without you!

Gary

[mitch777]

Voter suppression or Gerrymandering? I'm not sure?
 

The willingness to listen to the disenfranchised is really what this is all about.

Many who attend regularly seem to have an issue yet some of you choose to put greater weight on your own idea of fairness.

This whole post was a mistake if we can't figure out to solve the problem. NO, it is not a red herring. The people that attend AMG matter. Including EVERYONE!!!

I don't get this angry very often but it truly needs attention and I for one am open to ideas.

I am a member and proud of what I contribute as little as it is. This may only matter to me.

Honestly, I don't have much more to say.

Sorry for the post. Sorry to have upset anyone.

I have to stop caring so much I guess.

[leatherman]

oops. nevermind. 
just a post in the wrong place.

[bocker3]

Voter suppression or Gerrymandering? I'm not sure?
 

The willingness to listen to the disenfranchised is really what this is all about.

Many who attend regularly seem to have an issue yet some of you choose to put greater weight on your own idea of fairness.

This whole post was a mistake if we can't figure out to solve the problem. NO, it is not a red herring. The people that attend AMG matter. Including EVERYONE!!!

I don't get this angry very often but it truly needs attention and I for one am open to ideas.

I am a member and proud of what I contribute as little as it is. This may only matter to me.

Honestly, I don't have much more to say.

Sorry for the post. Sorry to have upset anyone.

I have to stop caring so much I guess.

Mitch,

You have not upset me, but I am really not understanding what has YOU so upset.

You attended your first AMG.  Seemed to have enjoyed it, now you want to change voting procedures because of complaints from others??
Having "participation" in the forums throughout the year dictate voting rights is not democratic..... Plus, who decides the threshold?  Having a neg member vote is a red herring, as I am fairly certain there has only been one and this person has attended many of them.  People have postulated that we could have any number of neg friends join to win a vote.  It has not happened!!!

So, if someone else has a complaint, let them raise it.  Let folks understand the concern and the magnitude.  Though, if the recommendation is to suppress voting rights, I will need a lot of convincing.  My choice has not always won and I never cried "the vote is fixed by a voting block".

I fear you have got caught up in someone else's drama.  AMG is NOT about the city, it is about the people WHO ATTEND.  Remember the good times in Chicago and do not let others ruin it for you.  I missed a number of AMG's because of the drama after Montreal - I was afraid to get involved with this group.  It is too bad, because the drama comes from few and every AMG has been a success for those who attended.

Hugs,
Mike

[phildinftlaudy]

Voter suppression or Gerrymandering? I'm not sure?
 

The willingness to listen to the disenfranchised is really what this is all about.

Many who attend regularly seem to have an issue yet some of you choose to put greater weight on your own idea of fairness.

This whole post was a mistake if we can't figure out to solve the problem. NO, it is not a red herring. The people that attend AMG matter. Including EVERYONE!!!

I don't get this angry very often but it truly needs attention and I for one am open to ideas.

I am a member and proud of what I contribute as little as it is. This may only matter to me.

Honestly, I don't have much more to say.

Sorry for the post. Sorry to have upset anyone.

I have to stop caring so much I guess.

I rarely respond to posts on AMG because of my involvement in the planning process, but I feel the need here to respond:

The willingness to listen to the disenfranchised is really what this is all about?
Well, in order to listen to the disenfranchised, the "disenfranchised" - if there are some who feel that way - need to speak up - Silence can't be heard - well, I guess it can in philosophical terms....

This post is was a mistake if we can't figure out how  solve the problem....
I think there has been an openness in this thread to listen to suggestions and have a discussion - it is still early and there are many who may still post and have additional suggestions.

Mitch: This thread was started by you stating, "Next I would like to make clear is that my proposed voting rules are in the interest of fairness to all. No sour grapes here in the least. Really.... so I'm taking the chance of getting beat up by bringing up a voting rule change. Please try to be gentle. I'm a frail old pozzie and bruise easily.

I don't think anyone has gotten upset or angry or beat you up over your expressed concerns and suggestions.... If anything you admit that you are angry...."I don't get this angry very often but it truly needs attention and I for one am open to ideas."

I don't think anyone is being closed minded -
I am a firm believer that minds are like parachutes and only function when open...
Of course, I am also a believer that if life were "fair," everytime I went over the speed limit, I would get caught - so fairness tends to be relative....

I'm not saying the process is perfect - I am open to ways to improve it - I just haven't seen how any of the suggestions thus far (and I may be wrong) would resolve your concerns. I think that there would still be issues raised with any of the processes previously suggested....

The fact is that with a site with thousands of members, there is a low "n" when it comes to members who cast their votes for AMG... Even if those members who concerns were expressed about were to be removed from the equation, it most likely would not have changed the outcome of the overall vote - this year or for previous years.

As I said, I am very open to suggestions - If there are those who feel disenfranchised - than they need to speak up in order to be listened to.... I don't really care for the insinuation that "some choose to put greater weight on their own idea of fairness..." as I don't see any evidence of that in any of the responses I have read in this thread.....

I also am not upset - If anything, I am more concerned that you are upset and/or angry about the situation -

I am hopeful that other suggestions and feedback will be given....

Thanks,
Phil

[Joe K]

Voter suppression or Gerrymandering? I'm not sure?

The willingness to listen to the disenfranchised is really what this is all about.

Many who attend regularly seem to have an issue yet some of you choose to put greater weight on your own idea of fairness.

This whole post was a mistake if we can't figure out to solve the problem. NO, it is not a red herring. The people that attend AMG matter. Including EVERYONE!!!

I don't get this angry very often but it truly needs attention and I for one am open to ideas.

I am a member and proud of what I contribute as little as it is. This may only matter to me.

Honestly, I don't have much more to say.

Sorry for the post. Sorry to have upset anyone.

I have to stop caring so much I guess.

Hey Mitch,

Throughout the history of AMGs, we have had this discussion, regarding who is eligible to vote and over the years we have adopted the current system.  I always find threads that state "many who attend regularly seem to have an issue..." generally end badly, because if we are going to have a real discussion, then those "many" need to speak up and let their opinions be known.  From what I have read here, I don't see any ideas that will ever appease everyone, because the "many" are not presented in this thread.

I am so tired of folks who elect to do battle by proxy and that's why so many issues are never resolved.  If enough folks want to amend how we vote for the AMG, then they need to make their intentions known publicly, so everyone can "accept" whatever changes we propose.  Instead, what we get, are threads like these, where one member is "representing" the views of "many" and then gets pissed off, when they are rebuffed, I guess because "everyone" should know this is a problem.

I'm sorry, but I don't do "foggy logic" well at all.  If you don't like how we vote for AMG, then state your case  (and ask your allies to state theirs as well) and we'll go from there.  Starting threads that only serve to build animosity among members, without adequate background and support, only causes bad feelings all around and should be avoided at all costs.

I say this strictly as a member of these forums.

Joe

[mitch777]

Joe,

You made many good points. Maybe I didn't express myself as well as I could have or maybe I should not have brought it up without knowing that the "many" may or may not speak up. Too late now. My mistake. Live and learn I guess.

I'm upset because some have chosen to define voting rules as voter suppression, not because my idea was rebuffed.

I am disenfranchised. The "many" may never chime in but at least one other member spoke here. Thanks Carl. More to follow? Not sure.
 
When some try to teach history lessons on how our democracy works and brand me almost from the start as a voting suppressor rather than trying to come up with a solution it becomes a contentious thread. Voting rules pertaining to eligibility are part of a democracy. I'm just saying we could do better.

m.

 

[mitch777]

Mitch,

You have not upset me, but I am really not understanding what has YOU so upset.

You attended your first AMG.  Seemed to have enjoyed it, now you want to change voting procedures because of complaints from others??
Having "participation" in the forums throughout the year dictate voting rights is not democratic..... Plus, who decides the threshold?  Having a neg member vote is a red herring, as I am fairly certain there has only been one and this person has attended many of them.  People have postulated that we could have any number of neg friends join to win a vote.  It has not happened!!!

So, if someone else has a complaint, let them raise it.  Let folks understand the concern and the magnitude.  Though, if the recommendation is to suppress voting rights, I will need a lot of convincing.  My choice has not always won and I never cried "the vote is fixed by a voting block".

I fear you have got caught up in someone else's drama.  AMG is NOT about the city, it is about the people WHO ATTEND.  Remember the good times in Chicago and do not let others ruin it for you.  I missed a number of AMG's because of the drama after Montreal - I was afraid to get involved with this group.  It is too bad, because the drama comes from few and every AMG has been a success for those who attended.

Hugs,
Mike

Mike,

Maybe my idea may not be the best option. I just wanted to see if we could work together to make changes to prevent animosity.

It has been mentioned that a new voting rule might keep people from participating. I disagree and believe there is room for improvement. There are many intelligent folks here with some good ideas. It's not an easy task but whether you believe it's a red herring or not is besides the point.

If you are not concerned about a voting block, fine. I just know that it has bothered others and I hope more enter into the conversation.

Your last paragraph was a bit condescending. You can rest easy. I did not get "caught up" in others drama. I also stated from the beginning that AMG are about the people and not the location. Well, I'm just expressing my concerns. I am one of "the people" too and so are those who have expressed privately their concerns about fairness.

We can do better is all I'm saying.

m.



 

[bocker3]

Joe,

You made many good points. Maybe I didn't express myself as well as I could have or maybe I should not have brought it up without knowing that the "many" may or may not speak up. Too late now. My mistake. Live and learn I guess.

I'm upset because some have chosen to define voting rules as voter suppression, not because my idea was rebuffed.

I am disenfranchised. The "many" may never chime in but at least one other member spoke here. Thanks Carl. More to follow? Not sure.
 
When some try to teach history lessons on how our democracy works and brand me almost from the start as a voting suppressor rather than trying to come up with a solution it becomes a contentious thread. Voting rules pertaining to eligibility are part of a democracy. I'm just saying we could do better.

m.

I NEVER branded YOU a voter suppressor - you took that on yourself.  I simply stated my thoughts on an idea.  If you are going to personalize someone's response to a "discussion" (your word, I believe), then you have to be able to separate out someone else's response to words from an attack on you personally.  I understood your good intent, I just did not agree with you suggestions - that does not make you a "bad person" in my eyes, nor did it anger me.  One can disagree without launching personal attacks.

Hugs,
Mike

[Ann]

Personally, I don't see a single problem with the current voting rules.

Although I've voted most years, I have not been able to attend so far. However, when I vote it has always been with an optimism that "this year I'll manage it!" Hopefully I will one year. I've never voted "with no intention to attend". I doubt very much that anyone has.

In fact, this year - although I optimistically weighed in with location suggestions - I refrained from voting simply because I can't see how I'd be able to afford it this year. I live "from hand to mouth" and often end up biting my hand because it's empty.

[mitch777]

I NEVER branded YOU a voter suppressor - you took that on yourself.  I simply stated my thoughts on an idea.  If you are going to personalize someone's response to a "discussion" (your word, I believe), then you have to be able to separate out someone else's response to words from an attack on you personally.  I understood your good intent, I just did not agree with you suggestions - that does not make you a "bad person" in my eyes, nor did it anger me.  One can disagree without launching personal attacks.

Hugs,
Mike

You're right Mike. I just take things too personal at times when I shouldn't. I still don't believe that my idea necessarily qualified as voter suppression. Voting rules of eligibility to create a more fair and equitable system for all is not suppression IMHO.
Again, my idea may not be the best. Like Phil said, open minds are needed.

Hugs,
m.

[WillyWump]

This comes up about every 3 years.

IMHO, It's not broke, dont fix it!

The "non-hiv" people that I assume you are referring too are an integral and cherished part of the group, and have been attending for years.

Let's keep it that way.

[mitch777]

With all sincerity, one thing that I would like to make clear here is that I have no ill will for anyone. The people I have referenced have done nothing wrong. Period.

I'm actually looking forward to meeting them and I hope they themselves are not upset over an honest discussion. They abided by the current rules.

My anger has subsided and I appreciate the concerns expressed. I take things too personal at times and hope the referenced people are better at it than me.

m. 
 

[WillyWump]

With all sincerity, one thing that I would like to make clear here is that I have no ill will for anyone. The people I have referenced have done nothing wrong. Period.

I'm actually looking forward to meeting them and I hope they themselves are not upset over an honest discussion. They abided by the current rules.

My anger has subsided and I appreciate the concerns expressed. I take things too personal at times and hope the referenced people are better at it than me.

m. 

 

[Lou-ah-vull]

Now Willy you need to get back to AMG.  I have been fortunate that we have not needed a hospital run recently and did not need to go it "alone."  Come to think of it, without Robert the past two times, we also have needed a hospital run....

Nevertheless, I want Robert back too (are you watching?)  San Diego is a fun place.  I was not against New Orleans (I dearly love that city) but we really need to look at the schedule so that New Orleans can be fun (getting out of late July and early August.)

Gary

[HippieLady]

Robert and I need to compare our dessert recipes and scope out San Diego's finest pastries. 

[bocker3]

You're right Mike. I just take things too personal at times when I shouldn't. I still don't believe that my idea necessarily qualified as voter suppression. Voting rules of eligibility to create a more fair and equitable system for all is not suppression IMHO.
Again, my idea may not be the best. Like Phil said, open minds are needed.

Hugs,
m.

I am glad that you realize I wasn't going at you.......  HUGS!

I always try to keep an open mind (remember your "fence sitter" comment).....   .  However, I can't open my mind if I don't understand what is unfair or inequitable.  From where I am sitting if every single member of this forum can vote, then it is as fair and equitable as possible.  Whether they choose to vote is their call.  Yes, I suppose that someone COULD have a bunch of folks register and vote to sway an election -- but while that has been raised as a concern before it has never happened to date.
There was once a suggestion that the folks attending AMG decide on the next location -- that has some pros and a lot of cons, IMO.  So -- there has been consideration in the past and the GROUP has consistently stayed with what we have now.
There is no perfect process, no matter what is chosen, someone or someones, will find reasons to pick at it.  However, everyone held to date has been deemed a success by the attendees.  I think THAT speaks volumes.

Hugs to you,
Mike

[weasel]

ON MY THIRD TRY TO COMMENT 

     We all know the DAVIDS's make a choice !

     They display their   "BOY TOY "   , I assume .......... that does not know
 what he is in for !

     There is a very ugly happening  @ AMG's with the David's
 JUST BECAUSE THEY MARRIED ?    Really ?  .   Does not mean they should
be the conduit  to future AMG's
   The  fact they have no regards for marriage  or even a Monogamous
relationship , Now dragged coast to coast  is bizarre .
    Ignorant comments to my friends defending  the David's ?
 I will chime in !
     I LOVE my AIDS MEDS  FRIENDS !  . WELL MOST OF THEM 

                                                   Weasel

   P.s. : This topic was started for a good reason !
  For the most part we are good people !     
   Some are only going to AMG's for  ()&*&^^%^*^*
 Nuff said , I may go over board  and post pictures    

[hope_for_a_cure]

Its been a while since I was out in SD.... nice town.  My favorite July 4th was spent there actually.

I may not be there for the entire AMG event but would love to regroup with friends that I made in Seattle as well as incorporate a side trip up to San Francisco while out on the left coast.  My main focus now is on my personal fight with Hodgkin Lymphoma and the outcome of my treatments will determine if I can make it to AMG.  I did not vote on the location mainly because it does not matter to me where this gathering takes place.   

I think that by summertime, I will be ready for a little vay-cay! 

J

[Ann]

     We all know the DAVIDS's make a choice !

     They display their   "BOY TOY "   , I assume .......... that does not know
 what he is in for !

     There is a very ugly happening  @ AMG's with the David's
 JUST BECAUSE THEY MARRIED ?    Really ?  .   Does not mean they should
be the conduit  to future AMG's
   The  fact they have no regards for marriage  or even a Monogamous
relationship , Now dragged coast to coast  is bizarre .
    Ignorant comments to my friends defending  the David's ?
 I will chime in !

 Nuff said , I may go over board  and post pictures    

Carl, what you wrote (above) is a personal attack, as well as a threat. You've been around here long enough to know that personal attacks and threatening behaviour are NOT permitted.

You've been warned at least two times now (most recently on September 17th), so I'm giving you seven days to cool off. You will be able to log on and read, but you won't be able to post.




I suggest that no one responds to Carl in kind - other wise you too will receive a warning or a time out.

Ann


edited for clarity

[Lou-ah-vull]

I am beginning to hope the moderators give some thought to locking this thread.  It has become unproductive and unnecessarily negative.  As one who has attended most of the AMGs, I continue to value and treasure the "once each year" friendships I have made all across the spectrum.  i know it is too unrealistic to expect that everyone will like everyone (or even have a nice opinion of them) but AMG is unproductive when we all start to bicker.  We have more than enough challenges in our lives and I fear this prevents others who are "looking in" to be fearful of joining us because of the perceived negativity.  Honestly, each gathering has been a wonderful celebration of our diversity. 

As the "presider" of our Memorial Service for the past four years, I urge us to continue to be kind and positive (in the good sense) to each other and allow these gatherings to continue to bring us support and joy and yes, good company and friendships.

Gary

[Jeff G]

I have faith that there will be no more unfortunate post in this thread that would make it necessary to lock it but will do so if I'm wrong .

I really dislike having to lock a thread because I know we are a forum of people that care about one another and even though we have uncomfortable moments we always close ranks and come together . 

[thunter34]

I am beginning to hope the moderators give some thought to locking this thread.

The BEST AMG's have the worst beginnings, if history is any indication.

Myself, I just see it as an ongoing thing - every couple of years, when the stars align, I am able to go.  If not, I just wish the others well and wait for my next chance.  I'm pretty crappy about this, though, because there is hardly anywhere that I am uninterested in going.

And the where is always a far second behind the who.