SCN: Put up or shut up.

[J. Johnson]

Take a look below at an event seen even less than sun in Seattle--Rich
changing his position!  (But, no, Rich, I did not "inadvertantly" [sic]
"get it right"--everyone but you has known from the beginning that your
suit would, and has, seriously affected SCN.) 

Rich says my early message illustrated a "misconception", and I asked,
"What misconception?".  And Rich construes that to be "heavy on venom and
light on logic"--this is a constructive response?  

Of course we're going nowhere--Rich won't provide a straight answer.  He
makes promises, but he doesn't deliver.  That is definitely established. 

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

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> I have frequently found JJ's communications to be heavy on venom and light
> on logic.  His last message continues that tradition.  Communicating with
> him becomes an endless excercise going nowhere, because there is no
> connection with my messages and with his response.
> 
> If anyone else has questions (as opposed merely to a wish to vent), I'll
> be pleased to answer them.
> 
> One point JJ inadvertantly got right was the contention that this suit
> definitely does affect SCNA.  Re-read the message and notice that SCNA
> money is about to be drained -- against bylaw rules -- from the
> organization.  I encourage members to take that very seriously.
> 
> By the way, I didn't see Malcolm's posting of the pertinent bylaw
> provisions.  Someone (not a party) should to show what is at stake.
> Membership apathy is going to be very expensive.
> 
> Later,
> 
> Rich
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > > > 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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/     * * * * * * *