Amazingly Correct! SCN: $86,000 (was: Put up or shut up.)

[Kenneth Applegate]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Rich Littleton wrote:

[...]

> 
> I would also add that, if the miscreants are successful in getting their
> hands on SCNA money IN THE SHORT TERM, that will drain SCNA coffers.  --
> even though the miscreants will eventually lose.  At that point, they will
> owe SCNA the money taken (?), but that could be after SCNA funds have been
> heavily used up in the meantime.

Rich - 

Ummm, pardon my gross stupidity in failing to appreciate your logic, but
is it not true that, if you win the suit, then YOU will wind up with $86 K
(or whatever is correct) of SCNA's money? In that event, my logic says
that the blame for draining the SCNA coffers falls directly on your
doorstep.

Ken A.

> 
> This is very serious organization business.

Well, you got that right, at least! Unfortunately, while being serious
business, it also strikes me as being a complete farce. Gilbert and
Sullivan could have done wonders with it!

> 
> Rich
> 
> 
>  
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, J. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > Irene, and all other bystanders:  this is not some petty, private quarrel
> > between Rich and three or four or a dozen people that don't like him.  It
> > comes down to credibility.  Rich would probably say it's the credibility
> > of the Board at stake; the rest of us would say it's his credibility on
> > the line.  You bystanders are the jury; the issue is not going anywhere,
> > let alone away, until you all come down one way or the other.  (Or all of
> > the disputants on one side or the other all go away.)
> > 
> > It is also a matter of a large sum of money.  As only one of several
> > issues here, it is an uncontroverted fact that Rich has sued several Board
> > members and other SCN volunteers, asking for damages of around $86,000.
> > And if Rich were to win, most of us read the by-laws as requiring SCNA to
> > foot the bill--which would bankrupt us.  Is this petty?
> > 
> > The matter is neither petty nor private--it could involve SCN's
> > existence.  (Rich says no; read the by-laws and decide for yourself.)  
> > A fist-fight would be quite irrelevant.
> > 
> > === JJ =================================================================
> > 
> > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Irene Mogol wrote:
> > 
> > > All this stuff is getting pretty boring and repetitive and going nowhere
> > > fast.  I would think that all of you, being intelligent people, could
> > > settle this matter in a civilized way - face to face.  
> > > 
> > > A good place for the meeting would be on any vacant lot, with you all
> > > coming out, fists first. I would be honored to be the referee, and even
> > > organize a cheering (first-aid) squad.
> > > 
> > > May the best man win?????
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  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/     * * * * * * *
> 

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/     * * * * * * *