Dave So the fact that you haven't heard of me [claim that by the way it is not true] makes me a non entity in your eyes is sophistry, plain and simple. I have been involved in things Orchidaceous for more than 30 years and my knowledge of what going on at the AOS is more detailed that what many people would like. Your latest response highlights what is wrong with the campaign against the proposed official slate: It is based on rumor, innuendo and worst lack of rationality. Let me point the following: You State... "The mess was caused not so much by the failure to elevate Howard Bronstein, taken by itself; rather it is the combination of that action with the nomination of Rassmann, himself a member of the Nominating Committee, for the position of Executive V.P. and presumably next in line for the presidency, and most especially given the rumors, be they true or false, that he was the most adamant opponent of nominating Bronstein and that he has fostered a hope that he will be able to use his political connections to obtain a substantial grant for the AOS from a foundation. These rumors may be false, but they are held and are being advanced by some highly respected and prominent members of the AOS. The situation should have been anticipated by the Nominating Committee, and it should have scrupulously avoided any nominations that could give rise to credible charges of conflict of interest." Again, David, where were you when other members of previous nominating committees had members nominated to positions within the AOS? Why is it that the big brouhaha comes when Jim Rassmann is nominated? could it be that the opposition is based on personal vendetta against Rassmann? I find it blatantly inconsistent that some of Rassmann's opponents agreed with previous nomination's of members of the committee and now claim conflict of interest. I also find it interesting that those that oppose Rassmann do not mention THAT IF IT WASNT FOR THE FACT THAT RASSMANN WAS REPLACED ONCE FROM THE REGULAR ROTATION BY A PREVIOUS NOMMINATING COMMITTEE (caps for emphasis not shouting), this year he would have been the natural candidate for the Exec VP position . So actually his nomination to the position is returning to the regular order that tradition imposes. The bad blood that exists between Rassmann and Bronstein is not a rumor and it is know to the Trustees , who in their majority are also AOS judges. Ah the rumor of the big donation . Isn't fund raising capacities and possibilities a plus in a member of a Board of trustees? Again ( and this is my opinion) it seems that what is being opposed is Rassmann's political views as the head of the Foundation mentioned is the wife of John Kerry. If I am being accused of being bombastic , you are most certainly ambivalent .basing your statements on rumors that may be true, and possibilities and plausibility. Fact: Bronstein is not the first member of the Executive Committee that have been removed from the succession cycle : Gren Seibels , Terry Williams, Arnie Linsman , Gary Kraus, Anita Aldrich, Leon Loeb Jr ,Dr Grove, Don Herman among others have been
So what is the hassle now? Howard... Your attack on the messenger is easily dealt with: 1- It is not I who has to prove anything, those accusing the committee of malfeasance carny the burden of proof. This is not the inquisition , where the accused is assumed guilty. You are a lawyer , you should know better. 2- I am not attacking anyone...I am asking both sides to present their side based on facts , not personal attacks , etc. 3- I am still waiting for the names of the members of your proposed slate. One cannot compare ( and an election is a comparison) a presented slate against an empty list. Again if there is to be a contested election, let it be. If there is a battle for the heart , souls and the vision of what the AOS should be , let it be. But please, let it be on facts. I find it interesting that I, a non entity as David claims I am, is being attacked for pointing the obvious ..that those who are opposing the slate have not presented their case in a manner that could be considered worthy of attention and respect. At least in my case rumors, innuendo, personal attacks and non alternatives ( read a blank slate) doesn't cut it. Howard, don't ou find it troubling that I , a person villified to no end by Easton , agree with him in this case? That weak is your case. That bad you are presenting your facts. Jose _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
