SCN: Lawsuit

[bc500 at scn.org]

I seem to remember an adage I heard somewhere..."someone serving as his
own attorney...has a fool for a client"  ...seems applicable to me.
cheers
have fun

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> HERE I think JJ understands an underlying truth that others want to avoid.
> (I wish he understood the SAME one I'm focussing on, but....).
> 
> JJ sees a rogue member de-stabilizing the organization.
> 
> I see de-stabilizing conduct by the ones running the organization.
> 
> Unfortunately, there aren't many options for JJ's position, except group
> opinion.  He has been successful at energizing this, but it ultimately
> does not have any control over my actions.  This is not said snidely;  it
> is simply the reality limiting his options.
> 
> I ran out of options when attempting to undo the dismissal and so have
> gone outside the organization to a different forum.  However, JJ's
> concern that this will cost the organization is correct, if the
> defendants in the suit get SCNA money.  It is likely that they will lose
> the suit. 
> 
> As I see it, the only viable direction is to focus the light on the
> performance of the miscreants and the current position of the current
> board.  Are any corrective measures being taken?  Is anyone analyzing the
> events that led to this?  Those are minimum steps to lead to some sort of
> resolution.
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > The essential, prerequisite basis of _community_ is _common_, as in a
> > common (or shared) experience or knowledge.  And while I would not "hold
> > any one's feet to the fire" to the extent of requiring anyone to read, let
> > alone follow, all the excruciating twists and turns of the ostensible
> > debate with Rich, I will argue that _everyone_ needs to know that there is
> > a debate, as well as the character of that debate.  If you turn your back
> > on this, if you choose to be oblivious to a long-running problem, then
> > your participation in SCN is ill-informed, and you no longer share
> > community with those of us that have been dealing with this problem for
> > several years.  Is Rich off-base?  Only you can decide.
> > 
> > You don't have to read every message of "more explanation" that comes by. 
> > But the issue needs public airing, so that everyone at least knows that
> > there is an issue, or we might as well become just "SN". 
> > 
> > === JJ =================================================================
> > 
> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Steve wrote:
> > 
> > > I vote to remove all further discussion of the lawsuit from this list, 
> > > and confine it to personal communications among those parties who 
> > > would like to continue the back-and-forth until death do they part.
> > > [....]
> > 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> > majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> > unsubscribe scn
> > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> > * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *