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