Amendment to Aussie’s amendment to the constitution

[Jovial Monk]

Just yes or no please.

The Petition is NOT about Annie it is about Annie/Monk. That is, according to IQ you really appointed me as mod because Annie shares her account.

Do you agree that that Petition is not about Annie?

[Jovial Monk]

Now Aussie, you said, my amendment could not be considered yet you instantaneously accepted Yogi Bear’s amendment to your amendment.

I therefor want my amendment considered too.

Maybe people should vote on my amendment to your amendment before your amendment is considered? that is how it is done in civilised clubs/societies/boards and whatnot.

Your curt dismissal of my amendment to your amendment is unacceptable!

[Jovial Monk]

OK, it is very clear that Aussie has agreed that IQ’s bullshit non-Petition was about a non-real construct or entity of Annie/Monk.

Since Aussie did NOT appoint Annie/Monk, just Annie, to the mod position it is clear that IQ’s bullshit, vexatious non-Petition is baseless, a non-Petition not about a real action of the Admin. As such the Petition can and should be deleted not even archived, just deleted.

There is no need for an amendment to the constitution, much less an amendment that gives power to an Admin to keep deleting Petitions to unseat him!

[Jovial Monk]

Is that about it, Aussie?

You are running away at the speed of light from the inevitable conclusion here! Why?

[Aussie]

You have not read the current Constitution.

[Jovial Monk]

No? So enlighten me and everyone else why you can accept Yogi Bear’s amendment to your amendment but not mine?

Is it that YB does not impact on your ability to entrench yourself? YB being a moron and all doesn’t really have any clue at all.