From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Oct 05 15:03:13 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.240.46]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IdvGI-0002lq-4d for llg-board@lojban.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:03:12 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071005220304.ZYXZ14054.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:03:04 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id wm301X00B3y5FKc0000000; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:03:02 -0400 Message-ID: <4706B491.8010909@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:02:57 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Immediate Action Needed on CLL Shipping References: <20070722191247.GA26253@digitalkingdom.org> <46B8E7B2.4060405@lojban.org> <20070807214749.GB26253@digitalkingdom.org> <46B8EF16.20507@lojban.org> <20070807230923.GG26253@digitalkingdom.org> <46B92503.2040408@lojban.org> <20070808171628.GL26253@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20070808171628.GL26253@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.3 X-Spam-Score-Int: 3 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 334 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 10:05:55PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > >>Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >>>On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 06:15:50PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Robin Lee Powell wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Given that I'm just going to vote to do whatever you say, can I >>>>>stop reading at this point? >>>> >>>>Fine, but note that I gave ***you*** an option to make a >>>>friendly amendment to offer an intermediate rate for Mexico >>>>halfway between the Canada rate and the rest of the world, >>>>depending on how much work it would take, given the exactly one >>>>order that I think we've ever gotten from Mexico. Otherwise >>>>they pay the higher rate. >>> >>> >>>It's no (additional) work at all on my end; how much is it on >>>yours? >> >>None. If they pay for Mexico and they live in Mexico, I don't >>worry about how much they paid. >> >>If this means you propose the friendly amendment, I accept. My motion was proposed almost 2 months ago, and there appears to have been no objection, but there has also been no vote, and no rate increase I notice that the Mexico option was added to the website, but my original motion was made because the other shipping costs no longer covered costs. I just sent 3 books overseas with postage costs higher than what we collected. Both UPS books also exceeded in costs what we charged for shipping, even though they were fairly close destinations. Can we have a vote on my motion or a declaration that it is approved and needs to be implemented? lojbab