<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Special Elections set, grievance dismissed</title>
	<link>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/03/30/special-elections-set-grievance-dismissed/</link>
	<description>Free Minds, Free Markets, Free Booze</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:19:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: WWB</title>
		<link>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/03/30/special-elections-set-grievance-dismissed/#comment-98459</link>
		<dc:creator>WWB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/03/30/special-elections-set-grievance-dismissed/#comment-98459</guid>
		<description>Well, isn't that special?

Sorry, it was that or a Special Olympics joke.

In any case, I still think someone should stage a &lt;a href="http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ocomment/ocarchive/oc00_01/oc10_00_07.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;bloodless coup&lt;/a&gt; of the ASUO.

Not that I'm necessarily against a bloody coup, mind you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, isn&#8217;t that special?</p>
<p>Sorry, it was that or a Special Olympics joke.</p>
<p>In any case, I still think someone should stage a <a href="http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ocomment/ocarchive/oc00_01/oc10_00_07.html" rel="nofollow">bloodless coup</a> of the ASUO.</p>
<p>Not that I&#8217;m necessarily against a bloody coup, mind you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sakaki</title>
		<link>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/03/30/special-elections-set-grievance-dismissed/#comment-98450</link>
		<dc:creator>Sakaki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:48:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/03/30/special-elections-set-grievance-dismissed/#comment-98450</guid>
		<description>The Con Court is, essentially, ruled by dumbfucks currently. I miss the days of Tony McCoun.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Con Court is, essentially, ruled by dumbfucks currently. I miss the days of Tony McCoun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy</title>
		<link>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/03/30/special-elections-set-grievance-dismissed/#comment-98447</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:29:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/03/30/special-elections-set-grievance-dismissed/#comment-98447</guid>
		<description>Just another long lesson in the Con Court not really caring.  Not surprising really, they're just looking for something to put on the resume when they're out shopping for Summer Associate positions.  Also, it is unlikely that any of them can read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just another long lesson in the Con Court not really caring.  Not surprising really, they&#8217;re just looking for something to put on the resume when they&#8217;re out shopping for Summer Associate positions.  Also, it is unlikely that any of them can read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Guerra Sucks</title>
		<link>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/03/30/special-elections-set-grievance-dismissed/#comment-98446</link>
		<dc:creator>Guerra Sucks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/03/30/special-elections-set-grievance-dismissed/#comment-98446</guid>
		<description>How is the ruling going to state that the evidence did not indicate that the appointment did not occur outside of the alloted time frame, when that was provided in the DEFENSE! The ruling says this when elaborating the difference between allowable times for appointment as opposed to confirmation, but in her own f*ing defense it was admitted that the time frame for APPOINTMENT was well past the allowable time. More ASUO bullshit</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is the ruling going to state that the evidence did not indicate that the appointment did not occur outside of the alloted time frame, when that was provided in the DEFENSE! The ruling says this when elaborating the difference between allowable times for appointment as opposed to confirmation, but in her own f*ing defense it was admitted that the time frame for APPOINTMENT was well past the allowable time. More ASUO bullshit</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
