SpencerUnderground wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 04:58:49PM -0500, Nathan Davis wrote: > >SpencerUnderground wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:28:11PM -0500, Chuck Cole wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org > >> > > >> >> If you are unhappy with the structure of the TCLUG that is > >> >> your problem > >> >> and I suggest you deal with it. I for one like the TCLUG and respect > >> >> it for what it is. > >> > > >> >I think you are missing the obvious. TCLUG has no statement of scope or > >> >being in legal terms, and that probably means that it's Bob's thing and his > >> >legal liability as well as his good works that help promote his business. I > >> >very much appreciate the efforts he and all others put in, and I'd rather > >> >not see him barbequed if some accident occurs. I'd like the group to grow > >> >and to include all sorts of interests. I'm just reacting to questions > >> >others have asked already. If TCLUG is an organization, then we need a > >> >statement of that. If Bob and RealTime are not responsible, then they > >> >probably need to take some action to establish that. I don't care what or > >> >when: I'm just identifying and asking about common things for public groups. > >> >These choices may limit what help I can provide. Let's not hide our heads > >> >in the sand. > >> > > >> >--- > >> >Chuck > >> Alright, let me pull my head out momentarily... > >> > >> You would like to see someone accountable for the actions of the TCLUG, > >> correct? Then you would be able to contribute further to this [dis] > >> Organization. OK. I understand your point of view. I simply > >> <strong>disagree</strong> with it. > >> > >> To have a single point of failure, er,uh, to have a responsible > >> person/entity be in control of the TCLUG would be against the morals of > >> why it has survived since inception. The point is not who is in charge, > >> the point is how can I help my peers. I truely don't believe you grasp > >> this concept. The priorities of the TCLUG are IMHO > >> > > > >Morals? > > > > > >> > >> 1) survival > >> 2) community support > >> 3) <whatever> > >> 4) see 1 > >> > >> If you would like to write up a nice FAQ and Rule list and Hierachy of > >> leaders and so on and so forth, please do. You can submit it to the > >> list for consensus. I wish you luck in your endeavors. > >> > >> I just wonder if Adolf Hilter would see the TCLUG as an admirable > >> adversary. hmmmmm. > >> > >> -- > >> --*--SpencerUnderground--*-- > >> http://autonomous.tv/ spencer at autonomous.tv > >> Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2 68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754 > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature > > > >Your statement is nice. However, how do you know it reflects the groups' > >feelings? > "The priorities of the TCLUG are IMHO" > IMHO == In my humble opinion. > > > >--Nathan Davis > > -- > --*--SpencerUnderground--*-- > http://autonomous.tv/ spencer at autonomous.tv > Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2 68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature >> To have a single point of failure, er,uh, to have a responsible >> person/entity be in control of the TCLUG would be against the morals of >> why it has survived since inception. The point is not who is in charge, >> the point is how can I help my peers. I truely don't believe you grasp >> this concept. No IMHO