Re: [Fsfe-uk] AFFS

[John¹]

On Tuesday 03 March 2009 12:19:31 Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> > In the case of the AFFS, we are looking at a matter which seems to
> > escalated quite quickly over a weekend with those who were involved,
> > getting quite heated because they are being asked to explain their
> > past actions or neglect, when I set out to find out what had happened
> > in order to make sure that any new rules made the workings of any
> > revived body easier.
>
> No, things have got heated because of *your* attitude and yours alone.
> You were politely warned earlier by myself and others that your tone was
> wrong.
>
> I don't believe you've gone through life without this being an issue
> before.  Indeed, that's probably why you had platitudes to hand, such as
> not being here to make friends, instead of stepping back and thinking
> about your behaviour;  you've heard the complaints before and routinely
> ignore them.
>
They are NOT platitudes, it is likely that I am dying, I'm just trying to 
clear this up before I do so, If you don't like my attitude that's your 
problem, as it is the others who are getting in the way of this beeing 
sorted out. 
>
> Please, take a breather and go away for a couple days and let things die
> done.  Then come back and see if everyone can politely get along to get
> this resolved.
>
> Other alternatives the list could consider include the list moderators
> taking some action to slow the pace of the conversation, e.g. moderate
> all posts and let them all through en masse once a day.  I think this
> would help a lot at the moment.
>
> If there is any other paid-up member who's interested in helping getting
> this resolved, please step forward publically.  Perhaps you can be a
> liason with the old committee.
>
I have been contacted already, the signatories to the bank account have 
been in touch, why should the "old committee" who failed to keep the AFFS 
running be allowed to do now what they could and should have done years 
ago. They had remedies for the failings and failed to put them in place 
then, are you suggesting that years later they are going to do any better? 
Or that they should be asked to do so? 
>
> If things continue, I see John being incapable of progressing because he
> lacks the pragmatism required, instead he'll continue to insist on
> answers that no one else is interested in, and will alienate futher any
> of those that could help him.

Those who can help, already are, progress is being made, I don't seem to 
have alienated any one prepared to help, only those who do not wish it 
noticed that they let the AFFS collapse, or Jason Clifford who will not 
state clearly what it is he wants. Oh and of course Steve Frosdick who 
wrote, "Arguing with John is like wrestling a pig in the mud.". I would 
you suggest that you address your remarks to to others.



-- 
John Seago
GNU/Linux Registered User No. #219566 http://counter.li.org/