I have no clue what the result is, as I have said before I fuck up this poll!
![fart.gif](http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/fart.gif)
not necessarily, but in this case, somebody has to do the job.Persol said:You don't necessarily need a replacement when you impeach someone.
cool skill said:Thers is no point in impeaching the person if there is nobody else to do the job.QUOTE]Impeahing someone doesn't mean that they can't continue to do the job...
crazymikey said:democracy is almost always a sham
Hoth said:WANDERER... you project me into such a larger-than-life role in your personal world, as though I'm somehow controlling your whole life. Apparently the concept of me is haunting you somehow despite of my lack of interest in doing so.
WANDERER said:HothYea, you are the center of my universe, fatso.
Paul said:While WANDERER is the one I was least certain about banning (if he hadn't expended so much effort on attacking Sharif I might've left him alone), he's got me convinced now:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...85&page=6&pp=20
Enjoy. Funny in the train wreck kind of way, but hardly conductive to a discussion.
cool skill said:Thers is no point in impeaching the person if there is nobody else to do the job.QUOTE]Impeahing someone doesn't mean that they can't continue to do the job..."
--------------------
Didn't we already go over this?
Why have we restated a point that has already been responded to?
I personally believe the forum is better off with Xev the racist as moderator than none at all.
Therefore, unless there is a person to do it, there is really no point in discussing impeachment.
The problem is, that you are asking to impeach somebody without a replacement.