[svlug] B. Coston is paranoid [...]
reiber at gmail.com
Tue Jan 22 14:53:51 PST 2008
On Jan 5, 2008 11:06 PM, bruce coston <jane_ikari at yahoo.com> shared with SVLUG:
> I just had a chat with Ross B. He finished closing out PIE last year.
> [...] Point being, SVLUG turned down the offer to take over as the new
> primary SIG of this real incorporated charity.
Mr. Coston, I have no memory of any conversations with my close friend
Ross B. regarding this subject; I'm positive I would have remembered.
SVLUG's not in need of significant assistance or a parent organization
of ANY kind, but I'm sure I would have entertained Ross's proposal had
I heard one.
> [...] This year Paul tells us that we need exactly what
> got spectacularly more expensive to do. I suspect he will claim lack of
> memory if asked.
WHAT? I've not asked you to personally spend a DIME, Mr. Coston, nor
am I asking any other SVLUG members to do so. You're making no sense
here. I'm not necessarily even a PROPONENT of having SVLUG become a
501c3, if that's what your rambling on about. I am, however, a
proponent of helping SVLUG grow and change and evolve into something
considerably more useful than it has been these past few years. (no
slam intented on any past officers; its CHARTER has evolved)
> Once upon a time I read a book called "The gentle verbal art of
I read the Bible once upon a time. And the book you just mentioned,
and the Art of War, and Dianetics, and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy, and thousands of other books as well.
> The book warns against "The Switcher" as one type of
> advanced liar. The "Switcher" changes positions and the subject so often it
> gets hard to tell their underLYING motive. ( In fact, the book warns
> amateurs not to attempt a confrontation against such a practiced and
> skillful liar and does not even try to guide one on how to gain enough skill
> to do so.)
You're treading quite near to libel/slander with your words, Mr.
Coston; I'm neither amused nor willing to let them stand without
redress. I expect an apology from you for calling me an intentional
liar, if indeed that's what you're inferring. If it's not, I expect
you to chose your words much more carefully going forward.
> Changing the subject, as in taking weeks to fess up and answer my
> question about where the actually valuable server unavailable for volunteers
> to work on went. I'm suspicious when it's announced that it's sitting at the
> house of the sbay.org president ( Or was she veep at the time, I'm not a
> sbay.org watcher.) Oops, the big confession needed revision. Supposedly, its
> at Ed's now. But the story changes too often.
Mr. Coston, AFAIK you have NO authority nor responsibility nor
involvement with SVLUG's server plans. Your assumption that anyone
within SVLUG owes you an answer to ANY question you ask it patently
FALSE. Unless you were attempting to HELP Heather with her project,
you had and have NO PLACE commenting on it.
Furthermore, your implication that Heather Stern (say her name,
coward!), SBAY's president, can not separate her SVLUG volunteering
from her SBAY involvement is ridiculous and demeaning to her. I trust
Heather Stern considerably more than I trust YOU, Mr. Coston.
I must insist, Mr. Coston, that you refrain going forward from
attempting to place yourself in a position of authority
or decision making capability within SVLUG; I simply won't have it.
SVLUG's volunteers and officers owe you NOTHING - make no demands of
them; you have no authority to do so.
> Individuals associated with sbay.org keep on bringing it up after its
> thoroughly been debunked and now archived on linuxmafia.com: that we need to
Names and dates, Mr. Coston. It has NOT been determined, by those
who can actually MAKE decisions within SVLUG, whether "we" need to
incorporate or not; it's only been determined that, in the past, when
SVLUG was a different organization with somewhat different structure,
goals, and missions, its members decided NOT to incorporate... THEN.
No-one ever made a decision that "SVLUG will never incorporate";
that's pure bunk!
> Odd that someone with an sbay.org association went negative and nasty in a big way first.
Elaborate - names and dates, Mr. Coston - and ensure you're not
commiting libel - failing that, refrain from stating such nebulous
> LUG Presidencies need Democracy and Delegation; not damage, denigration and denial ( we'd have to be in delusional denial to miss how this turns up after turning down the PIE offer.)
WHAT? Again, you're treading dangerously close to libel, here, Mr.
Coston, and I'll have to again insist that you refrain from that, or
prepare yourself for the repercussions.
> Sbay.org offers SVLUG nothing but the incorporation "benefits".
> So, someone who wants SVLUG as part of Sbay.org would start
> by suckering SVLUG into incorporation and waiting.
> Waiting until SVLUG gets tired of maintaining all the dumb crap we
> don't need for benefits so small they round down to zero. Once SVLUG
> politics heat up again, lucky SVLUG, sbay.org seems willing to shoulder
> those needless burdens of incorporation "for" SVLUG. And then the rules
> change after its much more difficult for SVLUG to assert its independent
> will. Guarantees that some sbay.org insider won't usurp our Presidency turn
> out worthless. Just like the last time when I and others witnessed an
> sbay.org insider threatening our presidency after the individual was
> forbidden to do so by sbay.org.
You're DELUSIONAL, Mr. Coston - SBAY.org wants NOTHING to do with
SVLUG; they're too busy with their own stuff. A heartfelt offer of
"parental guidance" level help was made by SBAY some time ago, was
accepted by SVLUG, attempted, and failed; nothing more. Inferring
sinister motives on anyone's part is ridiculous and, again, most
> SVLUG got a guaranteed return to the old governance of linuxpicnic.org in exchange for help one year.
Cite. I'm unaware of any responsibilities on SVLUG's part over the
linuxpicnic.org website, server, or yearly picnic. If indeed SVLUG
has authority and responsibility for some aspect of linuxpicnic.org, I
need to know.
> Voting on a new set of linuxpicnic bylaws just finished without any hint of that promise.
Why are you mentioning SBAY business on the SVLUG list? SVLUG didn't
vote on ANYTHING regarding the picnic; please don't confuse people
with such unclear statements!
> And an annotation implying dire consequences unless we let sbay.org exert
> undue influence of linuxpicnic governance in the form of guaranteed board
Again, Cite. I'm unable to parse such nebulous statements sans
> These claims got debunked years ago too.
> Didn't Goebbles say that a bold lie repeated often enough becomes the truth in the minds of listeners.
No, he never said that. And I'll repeat that until you believe it.
> Very telling that those advocating incorporation do not volunteer to cover
> the extra work for 9 years, including the necessary P.O. box and other fees.
WHO TOLD YOU THAT? That's simply untrue. I'm sorry, Mr. Coston, but
since YOU are not the person who people are telling what they are and
aren't willing to do (I am!), you do not have the means to know who's
agreed to do what.
Specifically, "I don't know of anyone willing" != "no one is willing"
- you have no idea who's doing what within SVLUG, so just get real,
and quit inciting people.
Help SVLUG, sure, if you wish to, but STOP if/when an officer or
volunteer tells you to stop, since your idea of help might not really
be helping SVLUG. If you can't handle that, you're free to focus on
EBLUG and CABAL and whatever other groups you might freq
> Sbay.org has a fact about SVLUG as a SIG of sbay.org sitting on their
> website in splendid isolation. I've seen it on their site after an internet
> search, a fact, that represents a real danger to SVLUG's continued existence
> as an independent entity unless given appropriate and missing context. Lying
> by slanting and selection still = lying.
Again, Mr. Coston - CITE! You had there an opportunity to include an
actual URL of said
"fact" about SVLUG on SBAY.org and you didn't do so for some
NOT ACCEPTABLE; cite your sources when making contentions like these.
> People complain about the dirt in public politics but lack of disclosure
> makes private politics much dirtier.
Fine, I'm redressing you PUBLICLY since you seem to prefer that.
Likewise, I'm looking forward to a number of public apologies from you
associated with the various libelous statements you've made.
> This all seems shockingly familiar, I wonder if it got lost when certain individuals decided our list discussion
> needed "shaping" before the "election" , making sure the truth stayed hidden
> from our "electorate" - or with this much obvious prevarication I really
> should not believe any reports about what the vote count was?
WHAT vote? When? By God, Man... you pen the most impenetrably obtuse
sentences sometimes; I've NO idea what you're referring to here. What
is the "it" in the "I wonder if it got list" sentence above? What
"it" got lost?
> -Kilgore Starslayer Excelsior el Presidente de East Bay Linux User Group ( excelsior
> means shredded newspaper - Bruce )
I looked up excelsior in dictionary.com so I must disagree about your
definition. Principally, "excelsior" means fine wood shavings, but
I'm thinking the pertinent definition is "3-point text: a size smaller
More information about the svlug