I disagree with your last comment : some one with a clear objectively based mandate from a major section of QL users & who sits on the Quanta committee has a lever that can move mountains despite personal differences. (You can have some fun as well the chairman thinks this list is Quanta's and if so any opinions represent the membership) All you need to do is pick up the mandate that is drifing in this list and make it objective have some names who will help out with bits (I dont need to tell you this as you organised QL2004) and this is the clever bit give some thought to the topology of discussion before you start - as long as a discussion is run on your topology you win.
This is based on experience in a massive organisation as the director of one of its competing components. Best Wishes Duncan Neithercut -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of gwicks Sent: 23 November 2004 20:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Duncan Neithercut" Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 10:33 PM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH Before I answer your comments a personal opinion. During the time I have been in Quanta I have not seen a chairman make such a serious blunder as this one. He clearly has no idea where the boundaries of his power and responsibilities lie. I would expect any chairman who has made a blunder of this magnitude to do the honourable thing and consider his position. Unfortunately this chairman has compounded the error by not being man enough to apologise, but instead has tried to pretend he has done nothing wrong by using the weasel word term that this list is a "Quanta Forum". Has he thought through the full legal implications of this? Does he really wish to see the assets of Quanta lining the pockets of our learned friends? They could well do yet. Now to deal with your points: > BTW leaving aside who owns this list which has been clarified by > Bruce Nicholls there are troubling elements in Mr Masons email : > > 1) The precise timing of the emails referred to and in particular the > 4 minute response to the original email that upset Mr Mason - the > nearest I have in timing in my archive (deleted folder) is one thanking > the sender of the first for his work in setting up the meeting and > indicating that he is looking forward to it. Whats upsetting about that? > You are not the only one having difficulty in this. Even I have and I wrote the damn things. What is clear from the whole mailing is that accuracy is not one of the chairman's strengths. (Or maybe the reason the committee are out of touch with the members is because they live in a different time warp from the rest of us.) My reconstruction is that my email was sent at 20.00 on 12th October 2004. (What John Mason did not tell us was that this email was a response to one complaining that Quanta had not replied at all to a request for information for the QL2004 mailshot. ) There was then a reply from Marcel at 20.34 in which there was nothing that could be regarded as offensive. The next came in at 20.52 from Tony Firshman. Tony included the line "I would like to be a fly on the wall at committee meetings." I can only assume that this is the email that John Mason was referring to and this was the reason for his vitriolic and irrelevant outburst against Tony. If the chairman is so sensitive that he cannot take a little bit of banter like that, then god help us all. > 2) The almost defamatory email of saturday 12th November : > Which saturday the 12th November was that email sent. > We haven't had a saturday 12th November this year. > Again I think you have to enter the Quanta time warp to understand what happened. I think he means 13th November sent 18.20. I am not sure what has upset him in this email. I thought I had identified it, but I have had second thoughts. (You need a degree in Kremlinology to penetrate the thought processes of the Dear Chairman.) Thus you are on your own if you want to find the "naughty bit". Just a hint, I suspect it is in the nice things I wrote rather than the nasty. BTW now you know why your moderator idea never had a chance of getting off the ground, Best Wishes, Geoff _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
