RE: [ga] Re: Complaint

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: babybows.com [mailto:webmaster@babybows.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 1:25 PM
> 
> Eric Dierker writes:  "The real point is that if the NC and 
> BoD are intent
> on allowing a IDNH all they have to do is grant the 
> foreplaced petition.
> Why hasn't Karl done such a thing in a formal motion?"
> 
> Perhaps the Board is not intent on allowing an IDNH.  Perhaps 
> the arguments
> for an IDNH have not yet completely swayed the Board.

Please note FWIW, Karl Auerbach was also one of the original supporters of
the IDNO.

> Perhaps they are ...

The remainder is sheer speculation in which, it is unseemly for the
leadership to indulge, IMHO. I submit that one of the problems herein is
rampant speculation on insufficient facts. This is especially true wrt
individual motives and "hidden agendii". Stopping that is, of course,
unrealistic. However, reducing that volume on the lists, should be a goal.
This cannot be accomplished if the leadership contributes to such idle
speculations themselves.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html