Re: (erielack) [ELHS] Re: EL List Daily V3 #1495

["J. Henry Priebe Jr." <root_@_net.bluemoon.net>]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Bill K. wrote:

> If that can't be done, then I'd agree - take the ELHS-specific argument and
> debate to a forum made specifically for that topic.  Saves me some scroll
> time and download time in these digests if nothing else - helpful since I
> can't seem to get connected faster than 33.6 with the lousy phone lines in
> this neighborhood.

Banishing the reform movement from the list would decrease download time for
digests no more than a second or two even with a 14.4 modem. (remember those?)
Use a keyword search for "(erielack)" to skip from message to message in the
digest.

I would agree that it would be appropriate to use another venue if there was a
possibility that the "other side" would participate, even in a token manner,
but that has not yet been the case. The board would like nothing more than for
us to be ostracized to our own corner of the universe where there would be no
worries about being put on the spot with an honest question or ten as they
would simply choose not to participate as they have done here on the
occasions of their choosing. Here the silence in response can be deafening
while "there" it would just be quiet.

We've been stonewalled at virtually every turn. The apparent policy of "Just
wait them out and it will go away" makes it impossible to hold anything
resembling a discussion anywhere but right here. Here we have at least a
chance of shaming someone "in the know" into answering at least some of our
questions.

I am well aware that it is an exercise in frustration, but the reformers are
not the ones who have made it this way. We are not happy to have to subject
the disinterested to our repeated requests for answers and our clarifications
of spin doctored motives and proposals. We're a group of very concerned
individuals who have been portrayed at every turn as things which we most
certainly are not. We don't have editorial control over publications which are
widely disseminated to the subscribership. This list is the only place where
we have any chance of reaching a substantial portion of the subscribership. If
you don't care, hit the delete key, if you do, speak up.

A very large part of the pronblem is that the board pulled a fast one on us.
They piggybacked our elections proposal on top of the survey so that
subscribers didn't have time to ask questions or give it adequate
consideration. Will has only alluded to it thus far, but we were absolutely
livid when we found that out. Hard work and good intentions were short
shrifted once again. We never asked for anything more than a fair chance to
present our proposal and have a dialogue with the subscribership. We do not
feel that we have been given anything more than a face saving token
consideration prior to outright dismissal without notification.

It is regrettable, but the back room machinations and silent treatment have
forced it upon us.

At least that's how it feels to me and more than a few others as well.

Henry

------------------------------