Subject:
|
Re: Question concerning Upcoming event
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.michlug
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 May 2001 11:57:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
429 times
|
| |
|
|
To Larry & All,
> The meat of the question is NOT as Scott states it. I am beginning to get • a
> bit annoyed by this.
Welcome to the group, or club, as it were.
I was annoyed since Friday.
> A good resolution has already been reached, one that
> most of the membership that spoke up seemed quite satisfied with. Why it
> is being reopened is beyond me. But since it is...
>
> The meat of the question is not "is MICHLUG *able* to benefit a religious
> fundraiser by exhibiting there?" Clearly that appearance can easily be
> left in the minds of attendees if the club membership desires it. The meat of
> the question is whether it is *appropriate* (for a TLC funded club, mind you)
> to leave that impression and to give that benefit to that group.
Indeed, I forgot about that, and I apologize for doing so.
> This was taken (not by me, initially but I see the reasoning behind the
> move) to .debate so that it could squirm around as it wanted to rather
> than causing a stir here in a non debate group.
I don't feel it was debatable, but I digress to, in terms of dropping it.
> Dragging it back here *after* it was resolved and couching it in some sort
> of "this is an example of how religion is persecuted" rhetoric over in
> .debate (in a Scott standard "I get to say my piece and then ignore the
> replies" way) seems extremely counterproductive to me.
I think it is, but I digress again, my opinion doesn't count over in debate,
and people end up harassing me. I left my e-mail open if they wish to
discuss it offline.
> I know Scott had the audacity to say he didn't want to hear my opinion,
> because he claims to "know what it is already". Unless he can more clearly
> state it than he has, he *doesn't* "know what it is already".
I have read your points, Larry.
> Let me reiterate, a satisfactory solution was arrived at and seemed to
> meet with general acceptance already. Why reopen this? Why not leave it as it
> was? Let the debate churn around as it wants to, it no longer has anything
> to do with this instance (and in fact looked to me like it was over anyway
> until Scott reopened it).
>
> I am in Ann Arbor till Friday and would be happy to meet face to face
> tomorrow nite with any and all who want to discuss this further, send me • an
> email. What is needed here is calm, not reopening closed discussion.
I don't think it is resolved, based on others talking about it to me,
offline, but Larry did make a few points, which I mentioned, and I will drop
any further discussion on it.
My sincere apologies for dragging this issue out again.
Scott S.
--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question concerning Upcoming event
|
| The meat of the question is NOT as Scott states it. I am beginning to get a bit annoyed by this. A good resolution has already been reached, one that most of the membership that spoke up seemed quite satisfied with. Why it is being reopened is (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.org.us.michlug)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
