SCN: Put up or shut up.

[J. Johnson]

What "misconception", Rich?  

Were you not running for the Board?

Have you not sued about half of the Board members _in their capacity as
Board members_?  Seeking significant monetary damages?  

Or is it misconceived that "running for the board implies that you have an
interest in working within the organization for its benefit and to improve
it and lobby to correct any flaws you think it has"?

No, Rich, the misconception seems to be entirely yours:  that in some 
way (that you have YET TO EXPLAIN) it really doesn't concern SCN when
you sue SCN members, in their SCN roles for doing SCN business.

Rich, it was six months ago that you said (at the annual meeting) you
would inform us just what this matter is all about.  SIX MONTHS AGO!  You
have not done so--you have not "put up" any information at all.  You
charge me with "misconception"--but you are the one that is holding back
the information.  You sue SCN members regarding how SCN business is
conducted, then you claim the suit does not affect SCN?  You withhold
information, then complain of "misconception"?  Ridiculous.

=== JJ =================================================================

On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> This message shows the misconceptions I referred to.  Ken, know that this
> is not a lawsuit against SCNA.
> 
> If you have some solutions to the situation, by all means lay them out on
> the table.
> 
> Later,
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Kenneth Applegate wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> > 
> > It strikes me as bizarre that Rich is running for a position on the Board
> > that he is suing.
> > 
> > Running for the board implies that you have an interest in working within
> > the organization for its benefit and to improve it and lobby to correct
> > any flaws you think it has.
> > 
> > Filing a lawsuit against the board, especially a monetary one, is taking a
> > sledgehammer to the organization and potentially wrecking it.
> > 
> > So, the question I would have for Rich is - what do you want? An
> > imperfect SCN that functions and meets some, if not all needs of its
> > members and users, and has the potential for improvement and correcting
> > problems, or no SCN at all? You can't have it both ways!
> > 
> > Ken Applegate
> > 
> > > 
> > > === JJ =================================================================
> > > 
> > > 
> > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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/     * * * * * * *
> > > 
> > 
> > Ken Applegate           How do you identify astronomers from Seattle? 
> > <starsrus at scn.org>      By the windshield wipers on their telescopes!
> > 
> > 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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/     * * * * * * *