|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Re: Fwd: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] trying to save NYLUG
|From owner-hangout-outgoing-at-mrbrklyn.com Wed Mar 21 21:37:33 2012
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix)
id 02B5B100C07; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:37:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix, from userid 28)
id D7465100C3B; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:37:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [18.104.22.168])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7DB1100C07
for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.13] (www2.mrbrklyn.com [22.214.171.124])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E952E27F;
Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:32:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:32:03 -0400
From: Ruben Safir
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:126.96.36.199) Gecko/20120215 SUSE/3.1.19 Thunderbird/3.1.19
CC: Ron Guerin
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] trying to save NYLUG
References: <4F63A9AF.1020806-at-vnetworx.net> <4F6541EF.6050509-at-panix.com> <4F6A335F.8000304-at-vnetworx.net> <4F6A4E5A.80607-at-vnetworx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 03/21/2012 05:55 PM, Ron Guerin wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 05:05 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
>> If you want to believe that. I had a situation where everyone had a
>> fair say in the situation and you guys backed off.
> Don't know what to say, except that it seems you've already made a list
> of people who apparently disagree.
I have no idea what your talking about, but i would have given my right
arm to have had someone intercede for me when NY fair Use and NYLXS was
under sieze the way that I interceded on your behalf, and I'm hearing a
distinct lack of gratitude about that effort.
> Me for sure. I'm not sure what
> you're blaming me for,
I'm only blaming you for not following through with the charter process
so that a fair charter would happen, one that would identify and address
all your genuine and legitimate concerns.
> since I have no influence on the process,
You had as much say as anyone. MORE so.
> and am
> quite certain dishonest people will not suddenly become honorable when
> it comes time to send the charter in.
They agreed to a public process with rogers rules of order and majority
voting. And your faction turned your back on that and walked away.
> I'm not the one being unrealistic
> or unreasonable, and the charter meetings frankly did nothing whatsoever
> to solve the problem that brought us to where we're at now. Far from
> it, since you were helping steer it in a direction where only a small
> number of the people who are currently members (more likely that they'll
> mostly be people who were never members prior to the coup) will be
> allowed to vote once/if voting ever happens.
> If you're upset with me for not backing that, that's something I'm quite
> prepared to proudly embrace. I have to live with the choices I make,
> and I'm certain I have done the right thing. Can't say the same for too
> many others involved in it though.
> - Ron