SCN: Lawsuit

[Rich Littleton]

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/     * * * * * * *