SCN: Lawsuit

[bc500 at scn.org]

as I have had convos with you on this point...using my name instead of
'SCN user'.  
Rich...it has been a position of SCN from the beginning to protect the
privacy of users from the beginning...I initially did not choose scn user
I changed when I started posting on Usenet newsgroups about intensly
private matters for which I wished to remain anonymous...as well on IRC
when I had that access via another provider.  Denigrating me because I
choose to retain that anonymity...denigrates all our users that do so...
and shows how little understanding you have of the REAL SCN Principles
and how important privacy is for the organization.  I suggest that you, 
personally would be better served to get off your 'high horse' and try
to use the opportunities that SCNA offers to help yourself heal instead
of trying to make it comform to what you want. 

I don't care if anyone uses their name or scn user...I have enough
intelligence to look at what they say and evaluate it on that!  I am
still waiting for you to show that kind of intelligence and consideration.
Can you do that?
I doubt it.

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> Hmmmm.  I think there's a message here.  Let's see, could it be "I don't
> use my name because that's the kind of person I am.   And, I don't
> want to examine the issues.  Sniping from the bushes is who I am."
> 
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 bc500 at scn.org wrote:
> 
> > 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/     * * * * * * *