[svlug] The purpose of the Picnic is to Have Fun.

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Heather Stern (star at starshine.org):

>     Go or don't go.

RSVPed; planning on an enjoyable event.  And, again, my thanks to Sbay
for hosting the Bay Area Linux community for this purpose.

>  But stop bringing this crap to social events. The
>     only purpose it serves is a man's ego.  

When all else fails, attempt to switch topics to a personally attack the
person who points out the truths you don't want noticed.  OK, noted.  No
offence taken:  You really had no other possible place to go.


>     You mean the portion that carries over to following picnix....

It _isn't_ going into Sbay's general funds?  We both know the answer.


>     Nobody died and made you treasurer, of absolutely anything.  

Nor claimed to be.


>     It's everyone's picnic, Rick.

This appears to be a deliberate falsehood.  It previously was; it isn't
any more.


> ::I'm reserving my volunteer energy for a summer picnic _by_ the Bay
> ::Area's Linux groups, which I think remains a good idea -- as it was
> ::when such picnics were held in years past.
> 
>     If you mean "owned by one person" and that's you, I'll bear the same
>     beef that you think to have with anyone else on this year's picnic,
>     because I *think* that you delude yourself that "us" means one person,
>     whom you despise.

No, unlike some people, I do mean exactly, precisely, what I say.  


[Alvin:]

>     Yes, and I thank him for being polite enough to let things drop.
>     If you will choose to do the same I would be a happy gal.

...says the person who just brought that matter up again on a _much_
larger mailing list than Alvin posted to.


> ::Ian made _no answer whatsoever_ to that request.
>     He moved things to a sensible registrar so they could be split;  he
>     made phone calls, he got flack.

And he totally and deliberately ignored the actual request.  Got that.

Did he even _once_ post back, saying "I'd like to transfer ownership to
the presidency as Paul Reed asked, but can't reach him by 'phone?" If
he'd done so, of course, we'd all have pointed out that, as annoying as
Reed's frequent unreachability is, complying doesn't actually _require_
reaching Reed by phone.

When that sort of thing happens, and is followed closely by threatening
to completely shut off our DNS on short notice, in order to sabotage our 
Internet presence, _while_ he still fully controls our domains, we
call that bad faith.

Sorry that you don't like that -- and I'm sorry you insisted on raising
this matter in front of the largest possible audience, but that's the
obvious truth.


> SVLUG didn't have to ask me for "its domain back"

Correction:  As you know, President Reed did exactly that.  He didn't
follow through, but he did ask.

> If your right answer includes continuing any of this, I respectfully
> ask you to let it float away on the winds of summer.

Stop attempting to misrepresent the truth, and we're done.  This was 
your idea, not mine.


> You personally encouraged me on Wednesday night to speak my piece
> in public, regarding facts that I know you had in error.

Correction:  You claimed I had misstated the facts on Volunteers in my
brief reference to your _predecessor's domain stewardship_.  I said you
should seek to set the record straight if you honestly felt I'd been
mistaken, but that I'd been extremely careful in my wording not to
exceed established fact, and would be glad to substantiate them.

I have now done so:  What I said was correct as stated, and the entire
membership can see that for themselves.  I'm really surprised you 
deliberately did this on svlug at lists.svlug.org, as I'd refuted Alvin's
claims about your stewardship on the _Volunteers_ list, and think it 
showed uncommonly poor judgement on your part.  However, since you chose
this forum, I've replied here.