From ???@??? Mon Jun 10 06:45:40 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5A73wV2027521 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 03:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5A73vJI028953 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 03:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5A73EV14099; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:03:14 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:03:14 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Mon Jun 10 01:03:13 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020610030539.0090e210@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: foghorn@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 03:05:39 -0400 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1931 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: Ain"!F9;"!C*"#!D5S"! Is the particular grievance in question now going to be researched in public as opposed to privately as grievances are supposedly done? Interesting to find out this evening in IRC that supposedly the SE/MA CC Rep is investigating this matter. My ASC was informed of this by the NC. Supposedly he has been asked by the AB to investigate this and this is common knowledge? If true, there must really be a super-secret list. As for not replying to Pam - all participants were under a gag order from the Georgia Grievance committee - not to talk with anyone about the matter. Tim From ???@??? Wed Jun 12 18:36:34 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CKRtV2003507 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CKRsJI007383 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:27:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5CKPmP16318; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:25:48 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:25:48 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Wed Jun 12 14:25:48 2002 Message-ID: <040301c2124e$d6081c40$21a428d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20020610030539.0090e210@mail.chattanooga.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Grievance Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:22:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1942 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: F)n!!=[L!!%NB!!?%+!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" Interesting to find out this evening in IRC that supposedly the SE/MA CC > Rep is investigating this matter. My ASC was informed of this by the NC. > Supposedly he has been asked by the AB to investigate this and this is > common knowledge? > No it is not common knowlege and it is not even accurate knowledge. I have not investigated anything and so far, from reading through my last 600 emails since Sunday, I have not been requested to do so. So I do not know what your ASC , "thinks" they were told, but it is wrong. Ron From ???@??? Wed Jun 12 18:36:34 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CKcZV2004673 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:38:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CKcYJI008855 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5CKbvA24855; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:37:57 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:37:57 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Wed Jun 12 14:37:57 2002 Message-ID: <040c01c21250$88342e80$21a428d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020610220014.009f49a0@imap.cs.com> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Georgia Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:34:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: <-AYo_B.A.IEG.lE7B9@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1943 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: L?D!!^mb!!D":!!]dW"! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Harrison" > I've taken a look at Mr. Rigdon's website and it appears he tried to turn a > GenWeb site into a profit center for his publishing company. But I > understand the site has been considered a problem for some time. The rules > were in place to deal with the problem. What I don't understand is why the > Grievance Committee decided the matter had to be dealt with immediately. > Why not just wait until the time limits in the rules ran out and then > dismiss Mr. Rigdon if he hadn't complied with the rules? > This was all discussed on the GAGEN list. It was asked why this commercialism went on for so long. John was apparently asked to change it on numerous occasions by different appointed Reps. but it never happened. It was asked why it was "allowed". Tim Stowell posted that he was to blame for letting it go on. He was, admittedly, trying to avoid a confrontation with someone he had, or still does, consider a friend. He admitted that he did not pursue the issue and thereby ALLOWED it to continue and in doing so set a precedence. It was voiced by quite a few GA. members that they felt it was wrong John's pages to be removed without consideration of the current guidelines and the time factor that it allows for. I also voiced this error, and it obviously didn't matter to anyone that they were wrong in not upholding the current guidelines, not even our esteemed SC, who should have acted to ensure that they were upheld, regardless if his pages were bad or not. They are admittedly bad pages. They reek of commercialism and money. BUT, he had a right under the newly authorized guidelines, to be "Officially" warned of being in violation, then he had a right to the same amount of time allowed to every other GAGEN Member to bring them into compliance, which is July 1st.. Tim has had every opportunity in the world up to this point to take action against John's pages and he turned his head and refused to do so. Now that there is a clearly outlined set of rules to be followed by everyone, including the management of the GAGEN, they have violated those as well as the USGW Bylaws, by not following set procedures. Ron From ???@??? Wed Jun 12 18:36:34 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CKlrV2005639 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:47:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CKlqJI010050 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:47:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5CKl1r01271; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:47:01 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:47:01 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Wed Jun 12 14:47:01 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Georgia Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:48:32 -0700 Message-ID: <00be01c21252$8389ce60$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-reply-to: <040c01c21250$88342e80$21a428d8@hppav> Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: <5qEtoB.A.pT.FN7B9@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1944 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: "f\!!O`-"!8^2!!4hF!! Well, if the situation in North Carolina set any precedents for us at all: 1) Tim has to agree to try to mediate the situation - has he agreed? (John has already agreed) 2) If there is no agreement to mediation, just what exactly do you think the AB can do? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:34 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Georgia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Harrison" > I've taken a look at Mr. Rigdon's website and it appears he tried to > turn a > GenWeb site into a profit center for his publishing company. But I > understand the site has been considered a problem for some time. The > rules were in place to deal with the problem. What I don't understand > is why the Grievance Committee decided the matter had to be dealt with > immediately. Why not just wait until the time limits in the rules ran > out and then dismiss Mr. Rigdon if he hadn't complied with the rules? > This was all discussed on the GAGEN list. It was asked why this commercialism went on for so long. John was apparently asked to change it on numerous occasions by different appointed Reps. but it never happened. It was asked why it was "allowed". Tim Stowell posted that he was to blame for letting it go on. He was, admittedly, trying to avoid a confrontation with someone he had, or still does, consider a friend. He admitted that he did not pursue the issue and thereby ALLOWED it to continue and in doing so set a precedence. It was voiced by quite a few GA. members that they felt it was wrong John's pages to be removed without consideration of the current guidelines and the time factor that it allows for. I also voiced this error, and it obviously didn't matter to anyone that they were wrong in not upholding the current guidelines, not even our esteemed SC, who should have acted to ensure that they were upheld, regardless if his pages were bad or not. They are admittedly bad pages. They reek of commercialism and money. BUT, he had a right under the newly authorized guidelines, to be "Officially" warned of being in violation, then he had a right to the same amount of time allowed to every other GAGEN Member to bring them into compliance, which is July 1st.. Tim has had every opportunity in the world up to this point to take action against John's pages and he turned his head and refused to do so. Now that there is a clearly outlined set of rules to be followed by everyone, including the management of the GAGEN, they have violated those as well as the USGW Bylaws, by not following set procedures. Ron From ???@??? Wed Jun 12 18:36:34 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CLEgV2007896 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:14:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CLEeJI013811 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5CLE8211915; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:14:08 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:14:08 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Wed Jun 12 15:14:07 2002 Message-ID: <052d01c21255$955522e0$21a428d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <00be01c21252$8389ce60$f2a4ec0c@JANA> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Georgia Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:10:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1945 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ~(f!!f:-"!(n""!o_8"! Jana, I really don't know what the AB can do. I have emailed John and am waiting for his reply. It is my understanding that he is in favor of mediation. However, I do not hold any hopes that the management of GA, will cooperate without bias. Keith has spoken and everyone has taken up the sword with him. Although they are wrong, as you have pointed out, Tim got someone else to do his dirty work and now that John is gone, they will probably never allow him to be treated as others. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jana Black" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:48 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Georgia > Well, if the situation in North Carolina set any precedents for us at > all: > > 1) Tim has to agree to try to mediate the situation - has he agreed? > (John has already agreed) > 2) If there is no agreement to mediation, just what exactly do you think > the AB can do? > > Jana > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Eason [mailto:rkeason@tir.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:34 PM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Georgia > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Harrison" > > I've taken a look at Mr. Rigdon's website and it appears he tried to > > turn > a > > GenWeb site into a profit center for his publishing company. But I > > understand the site has been considered a problem for some time. The > > rules were in place to deal with the problem. What I don't understand > > is why the Grievance Committee decided the matter had to be dealt with > > > immediately. Why not just wait until the time limits in the rules ran > > out and then dismiss Mr. Rigdon if he hadn't complied with the rules? > > > > This was all discussed on the GAGEN list. It was asked why this > commercialism went on for so long. John was apparently asked to change > it on numerous occasions by different appointed Reps. but it never > happened. It was asked why it was "allowed". Tim Stowell posted that > he was to blame for letting it go on. He was, admittedly, trying to > avoid a confrontation with someone he had, or still does, consider a > friend. He admitted that he did not pursue the issue and thereby > ALLOWED it to continue and in doing so set a precedence. > > It was voiced by quite a few GA. members that they felt it was wrong > John's pages to be removed without consideration of the current > guidelines and the time factor that it allows for. > > I also voiced this error, and it obviously didn't matter to anyone that > they were wrong in not upholding the current guidelines, not even our > esteemed SC, who should have acted to ensure that they were upheld, > regardless if his pages were bad or not. They are admittedly bad pages. > They reek of commercialism and money. BUT, he had a right under the > newly authorized guidelines, to be "Officially" warned of being in > violation, then he had a right to the same amount of time allowed to > every other GAGEN Member to bring them into compliance, which is July > 1st.. > > Tim has had every opportunity in the world up to this point to take > action against John's pages and he turned his head and refused to do so. > Now that there is a clearly outlined set of rules to be followed by > everyone, including the management of the GAGEN, they have violated > those as well as the USGW Bylaws, by not following set procedures. > > Ron > > From ???@??? Wed Jun 12 18:36:34 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CLLeV2008441 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:21:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CLLcJI014661 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5CLKs221002; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:20:54 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:20:54 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Wed Jun 12 15:20:54 2002 Message-ID: <053a01c21256$88605fe0$21a428d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <00be01c21252$8389ce60$f2a4ec0c@JANA> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:17:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [Board-Exec] Grievance Resent-Message-ID: <2I296D.A.8HF.2s7B9@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1946 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 0S6!!%mk"!*O$"!m8b!! All, Let me say that what Holly and Teresa have told you about our conversations are correct. We were not discussing anything about the "outcome" or our feeling about the matter. We were not even discussing the issue as a grievance, but as a mediation process, and who should contact the GAGEN folks about participating. I did not feel that it should be me since I am a GAGEN Member. But that apparent attempt at trying to put our best foot forward may not have been the best method under the circumstances. For that, I apologize to the rest of you. However the agrieved person has been informaed all along, as stated by Teresa, and as soon as I hear back from him, I will let you know his current feeling on the subject. Thanks, Ron From ???@??? Wed Jun 12 18:36:37 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CLMEV2008482 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:22:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CLMCJI014741 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5CLLSu21395; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:21:28 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:21:28 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Wed Jun 12 15:21:26 2002 Message-ID: <054701c21256$95dd7040$21a428d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:17:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [Board-Exec] Fw: Formal Grievance filing request against Tim Stowell Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1947 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 15*!!7<0!!R_O!!flT!! ----- Original Message ----- From: JohnR238@aol.com To: rkeason@tir.com Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:58 PM Subject: Formal Grievance filing request against Tim Stowell I would like to file a formal complaint against Tim Stowell acting State Coordinator for the State of Georgia for his abuse of power in removing the link to my county page AFTER I had agreed to comply with the guidelines and a full 45 days BEFORE the new guidelines were scheduled to go into affect. This reflects an obvious dislike of me personally by Tim and he is abusing his position to try to force me from The USGEN Web Project. I request an immediate relinking of my Richmond County, GA page and a censure of Tim for his obvious abuse of his position. I further request that I be allowed adequate time to bring the page into compliance and that an independent committtee be designated to arbitrate whether or not my new site is in compliance with the guidelines. John Rigdon Here is the list of grievances forwarded to me by Tim and his cronies. John, The following are the concerns that the GAGenWeb have with your site. http://www.researchonline.net/richmond/ In reviewing the circumstances of your dismissal by Keith, it is very important that we hear from you regarding these. USGENWEB ARTICLE IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS Section 1. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo on the home page. A state project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state. Section 2. Solicitation of funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is defined as the direct appeal on the home page of any of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to do research, to pay for server space, to do look-ups, etc. A website may, however, acknowledge any entities who may host their website (i.e., provide server space at no cost) or may include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which they offer research services for reimbursement. The acknowledgement may include a link to the hosting entity's website. A website may list research materials and/or services which may be for sale/hire, either by the coordinator, a genealogy society, or others. Such a listing shall not be on the main web page for the site, but may be linked from the main web page. It may be appropriate to include a disclaimer that the coordinator and The USGenWeb Project do not guarantee the contents of such research materials and/or the expertise of any professional researchers. ARTICLE XII. STATE PROJECTS Section 7. The state project shall have the responsibility to remove any links to websites which fail to meet The USGenWeb Project/XXGenWeb Project established guidelines/standards. GAGenWeb GUIDELINES We're quoting a brief portion of the guideline, which you can see in full at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/guidelines.htm #6 - The purpose of a GAGenWeb county site is to provide genealogical researchers with freely accessible records about the county to help further their family research. #15 - Items will not be offered for sale by a GAGenWeb Coordinator, or any entity with whom the Coordinator may have a monetary interest...... ***This is the major concern*** #16c C) - The main page of the county site must have a link to the GAGenWeb County Selection Table: http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.htm #16f F) - Each County Site must include information for Resource Contact Addresses and Phone Numbers, i.e., Court House (Probate Judge, & Land Record Office), Newspaper, Health Dept., Chamber of Commerce and the local Genealogical Society, with internet links when available. #16g G) - Each county site's main page must prominently include the names and email addresses of the County Coordinator and Regional Coordinator. The inclusion of the State Coordinator and Asst. State Coordinator is optional. (not updated---Laura Schmidt is your Regional Coordinator) #16j J) - Each county site's main page must include a link to the county's mailing list. #16k K) - Each County Coordinator and Special Projects Coordinator is required to keep a link to their county's section in GAGenWeb Archives. #19 19. GAGEN Email List. ...... Acceptable rules of decorum are required on this list. Failure to obey common courtesy by harassing others, defaming others, or personally attacking another member on the list may subject the offender to loss of posting privileges or dismissal from GAGenWeb for a repeated pattern. a)Inflamatory remarks and language on the GAGen List b)Starting a personal alternative list using e-mail addresses from GAGenWeb. Not accepting requests to "unsubscribe". Carla Cegielski Virginia Crilley Jimmy Epperson Melody McCook Brenda Pierce Richard Pettys, Jr. Wyndell Taylor ================== My response: >Thanks for your note. You fail to address the issue which is whether I or >any other county link may be removed without due process - less than 6 >hours notice - and AFTER I had agreed to make the requested changes. > >It was Keith - not me who took this matter to the mailing lists - not only >the gagen list, but posted it to the GA-Richmond list as well. I was >merely responding to his attacks and lies. If you need me to send the >note regarding the timeline and the circumstances I was involved in at the >time, I will do so. > >Most of the points you made in your email are irrelevant IF you address >the main issue listed above. If you decide that the state coordinatOR can >act in such a capricious manner, then ALL of us as county and regional >coordinators are in jeopardy of having our YEARS of work trashed with no >notice simply because we disagree with Tim. While I'm on the matter let >me point out that Keith is not even my regional coordinator. I received >his email out of the blue with no prior announcement that he was >authorized to act as the page nazi. > >USGENWEB >ARTICLE IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS >Section 1. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb >Project logo on the home page. A state project logo may be required >depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state. > >They're there. Always have been. What's the issue? > >http://www.researchonline.net/richmond/ > >=================== > >Section 2. Solicitation of funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is >defined as the direct appeal on the home page of any of the websites >comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to do research, to pay for >server space, to do look-ups, etc. A website may, however, acknowledge any >entities who may host their website (i.e., provide server space at no cost) >or may include a link to a coordinator's personal page on which they offer >research services for reimbursement. The acknowledgement may include a link >to the hosting entity's website. A website may list research materials >and/or services which may be for sale/hire, either by the coordinator, a >genealogy society, or others. Such a listing shall not be on the main web >page for the site, but may be linked from the main web page. It may be >appropriate to include a disclaimer that the coordinator and The USGenWeb >Project do not guarantee the contents of such research materials and/or the >expertise of any professional researchers. > >I see NO PLACE that my page is out of compliance with this >paragraph. Please be specific in telling me where it is not compliant. > >================= > >ARTICLE XII. STATE PROJECTS >Section 7. The state project shall have the responsibility to remove any >links to websites which fail to meet The USGenWeb Project/XXGenWeb Project >established guidelines/standards. > >This is irrelevant if I am to be given the opportunity to comply with the >NEW guidelines which are not due to be in place until July 1, 2002. Must >I comply with less than 6 hours notice? That was all I was given and my >link has been removed capriciously and with malice by Tim. I request that >this link be reestablished until this matter is resolved. It has now been >a week and there is no indication that this matter will be resolved in a >short time. It is simpy not fair to me or any of the other county >coordinators to whom this has been done that a state coordinator can act >in this manner. > >================= > >#6 - >The purpose of a GAGenWeb county site is to provide genealogical >researchers with freely accessible records about the county to help further >their family research. > >I have addressed this issue in a previous message that all of you should >have, but I will repeat it here. > >The guidelines do not go into force until July 1st. As I stated to Keith >in my first email, I have not been involved in the politics and had not >even looked at the guidelines until his email last Wednesday. I further >stated that I would comply and asked for the URL of the guidelines and how >long I had to comply. > >=================== > >#15 - >Items will not be offered for sale by a GAGenWeb Coordinator, or any entity >with whom the >Coordinator may have a monetary interest...... >***This is the major concern*** > >It may be a Major CONCERN to you, but again irrelevant if I am allowed the >time to comply as stated in YOUR guidelines. while we are on the subject, >please read ALL of #15 carefully and explaining EXACTLY where I do not comply. > >===================== > >#16c >C) - The main page of the county site must have a link to the GAGenWeb >County Selection Table: http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/table.htm > > >New requirement. Previously we were only required to link to the state >home page. > >==================== > >#16f >F) - Each County Site must include information for Resource Contact >Addresses and Phone Numbers, i.e., Court House (Probate Judge, & Land >Record Office), Newspaper, Health Dept., Chamber of Commerce and the local >Genealogical Society, with internet links when available. > >Ditto. It is not in the 5 things we stipulated in the original USGenWeb >Project guidelines. > >==================== > >#16g >G) - Each county site's main page must prominently include the names and >email addresses of the County Coordinator and Regional Coordinator. The >inclusion of the State Coordinator and Asst. State Coordinator is optional. > >(not updated---Laura Schmidt is your Regional Coordinator) > >Ditto. Do I have the opportunity to comply or not? > >=================== > >#16j >J) - Each county site's main page must include a link to the county's >mailing list. > >Ditto. New requirement. > >=================== > >#16k >K) - Each County Coordinator and Special Projects Coordinator is required >to keep a link to their county's section in GAGenWeb Archives. > >Ditto. New requirement. > >================== > >#19 >19. GAGEN Email List. >...... Acceptable rules of decorum are > >required on this list. Failure to obey common courtesy by harassing others, >defaming > >others, or personally attacking another member on the list may subject the >offender to > >loss of posting privileges or dismissal from GAGenWeb for a repeated pattern. >a)Inflamatory remarks and language on the GAGen List > >b)Starting a personal alternative list using e-mail addresses from >GAGenWeb. Not accepting requests to "unsubscribe". > > >Carla Cegielski >Virginia Crilley >Jimmy Epperson >Melody McCook >Brenda Pierce >Richard Pettys, Jr. >Wyndell Taylor > > >I apologize for having to get everyone else in the state involved in this >matter, but I remind you that it was Keith - not me who took it to the >lists and the gagen list is the proper forum for discussion of matters >relating to issues that face all of us as county coordinators. Squelching >my voice on the list while this matter is unresolved is not proper. > >I would also point out that this is a NEW guideline and selectively >enforcing it now prior to the implementation date is DEAD WRONG!!! > >John Rigdon ======================= Their response. It is obvious that they did not address the true issue at hand - that being whether I would be given the same time as others to comply, but instead they followed along behind Tim's vindetta. John Rigdon My response: After careful review of your Richmond County page http://www.researchonline.net/richmond/ together with many complaints about the commercialism and intent of the page, the Grievance Committee has reached the following conclusions. This conclusion was reached after considerable discussion to assure that all aspects were considered. 1)The site is and has been for several years used primarily for your commercial purposes. This is in direct conflict with the goals of USGenWeb and GAGenWeb to provide free on-line data for researchers. 2)The e-mail correspondence you directed to Keith Giddeon, indicated that you did not support the very clear statement about this in the GAGenWeb Guidelines recently adopted. You participated in discussion of these guidelines on the GAGEN list and were certainly aware of them. Your e-mail responses both to Keith and to the GAGen List conveyed an attitude not in keeping with the goals. 3)After much discussion and deliberation, we uphold the decision of dismissal. Virginia Crilley Jimmy Epperson Melody McCook Brenda Pierce Richard Pettys, Jr. Laura Schmidt Denise Smiley Wyndell Taylor Chair In conclusion: The issue at hand is not the current status of my page, what I have or do not have there, or my criticism of Tim for his lack of leadership and pettyness. The issue is whether I or any other cc may have our page delinked without due process and without the same amount of time allowed everyone else for compliance. I as your immediate attention. They have been dragging their feet on this issue for 3 weeks now. John Rigdon From ???@??? Wed Jun 12 18:36:37 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CLXuV2009609 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:33:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CLXsJI016261 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:33:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5CLX8m31810; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:33:08 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:33:08 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Jun 12 15:33:08 2002 Message-ID: <001b01c21259$0b4425c0$ce967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:35:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Declude-Spoolname: Dbdee0295017424fc.SMD Subject: [Board-Exec] Formal Grievance Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1948 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: L;U"!0GD!!6cF!!>^g"! The USGW P Bylaws allow for the placing of "purchasable publications" on a USGW P website, as long as such information is not on the main page. Do the GAGenWeb Guidelines go one step beyond this and forbid the listing of purchasable publications on the site, if they are offered by the CC? Is it okay to list such publications, if they are offered by someone other than the CC? Phyllis From ???@??? Wed Jun 12 19:06:12 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CMpjV2016368 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:51:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CMphJI026354 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:51:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5CMowm08350; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:50:58 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:50:58 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Wed Jun 12 16:50:57 2002 Message-ID: <05d701c21263$193a2b20$21a428d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: Old-Cc: , , , , , , , "Virginia Crilley" Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:47:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [Board-Exec] GA. Guidelines Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1949 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: g\:!!9am!!V?S!!GUo"! *** This post has been CC'd to John as well as the GAGEN Council*** Please do not reply to ALL, so as to not include them in your reply, I CC'd them, because I think they have a right to know certain information coming from me, as a CC Rep. for them and their Region. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- All, The GA guidelines can be found at the following address. http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/guidelines.htm However, (see below) I have included the pertinent items from the guidelines which pertain to the current situation with John Rigdon. According to the website: GAGENWEB GUIDELINES ADOPTED: April 23, 2002 LAST REVISED: May 14, 2002 -------------------------------------- the above is the date of activation of the guidelines. The last revision date, according to posts made to the GAGEN list, are the date of recognition for the implementation of the new guidelines. According to "Section 21, .....each Coordinator shall have 45 days to bring their sites into compliance". Section 21 has been denied to John Rigdon. According to the GA proceeding, the use of Section 14 and 15, was the grounds for immediate dismissal. However that is in conflict with Section 21 as well as Section 20, which states: "......Coordinators are *entitled* to sufficient warning before being dismissed over page requirement issues. It also refers you to the "end of Section 16" which states: "If a County Coordinator is found to be in violation of any of these requirements, they will be given warning and 30 days to correct the infraction. A copy of the emailed warning will be sent to the GAGenWeb Council to verify that warning was sent." This is not including the already 45 days that Section 21 allows. Section 20 has been denied to John Rigdon. Section 16 has been denied to John Rigdon. John got the shaft and Keith Giddeon was allowed to do so with Tim's blessing. And the GA. Council added insult to injury by not allowing John Rigdon the rights set forth in the very guidelines they are suppose to uphold. NO ONE disputes that John has been asked over the years to change his pages. However, years of precedence was allowed by the SC, Tim Stowell, which allowed John to do as he pleased. Now, John claims he was willing to comply, however he never got the chance. His pages were de-linked in 1 day. According to the discussions on the GAGEN list, all past problems, INCLUDING the one of having more than 3 counties were to fall under the new guidelines as set forth in the guidelines. Since there are many people who have more than 3 counties, they are allowed to keep them, but no one else can do so from now on. Which is fine. John has had his pages for years. He has been left alone all these years. Now because Keith didn't 'THINK" he would comply, he was summarily removed and it was upheld, "..because no one FELT he would agree to actually change them". But my question is not whether he would have changed them. To me, that is irrelevant. But as a Member of the GAGEN, was he not entitled to every right, under those guidelines, as every other Coordinator, as stated in the guidelines themselves. The only correct answer is YES. He was and still should be entitled to the very same amount of time as all others in GA. regardless of their past history. They are covered under those guidelines and they should be entitled to the protection affording in those guidelines. To do otherwise is perpetrating a violation of Members rights. Why the GA Council felt it "right" to uphold illegal actions against one of it's own members has been lost to many of the more vocal members that have expressed their displeasure at the action. IF the council was telling the truth, and they believed that John Rigdon was not going to change his pages, then all they had to do was uphold his "given" rights as outlined in the guidelines and they would have had every right to follow through with the removal after the allotted time period had past. If they were right, he would still be gone and we wouldn't be discussing this today. To do something because you think you know how someone is going to behave is not proper management. The GA Council is charged with protecting ALL Members and upholding everyone's rights, not just certain individuals that are friends with the right people. I know a few of them and I know them to be good and honest people. But we all make mistakes. This just happens to be one. But it should be corrected. And the GA Council should be asked to change it's decision and uphold the rights of it's member, in John Rigdon, and allow for him to either change, or allow for the designated time to expire, at which time they would be free to take whatever action is set forth in the guidelines. That's my opinion, as well as the opinion of many GA Coordinators who voiced the same opinion on the GAGEN-L and to me privately. Thanks, Ron --------------------------------------------------- 14. Dismissal of a Coordinator. A coordinator may be dismissed for abandoning their site, and/or violation of these guidelines. 15. Offering Items for Sale on County Sites. Coordinators may provide a list of, or links to, genealogical materials available for purchase that relate to the specific County or Project, provided it is not on the main page and is not the primary purpose of the site (as stated in Section 6). Items will not be offered for sale by a GAGenWeb Coordinator, or any entity with whom the Coordinator may have a monetary interest. Additionally, monies will not be solicited on any GAGenWeb state or county page with the following exceptions: a) Professionally printed books, bound in hardcover or industry accepted (perfect bound, etc) softcover, that contain information related to the county or subject of the Web page on which it is offered. b) Professionally manufactured CD-ROMs containing data related to the county or subject of the Web page on which it is offered. c) Requests for donations to a legitimate genealogy or historical society. A coordinator who chooses to sell items within the above exceptions, must abide by sound business practices. Persistent complaints to GAGenWeb about failure to deliver the proper items and/or refunds where applicable could result in dismissal from GAGenWeb. A coordinator who sells, or solicits items not covered within the exceptions above will be immediately dismissed from GAGenWeb. ------------------------------------------------------------ 20. County and Special Project Coordinators Rights. f) Coordinators are entitled to sufficient warning (the end of section 16) before being dismissed over page requirements issues. ------------------------------------------------------------ 21. Implementation of Guidelines. Upon the approval and passage of these guidelines, each Coordinator shall have 45 days to bring their sites into compliance. From ???@??? Thu Jun 13 06:02:51 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5D6pTV2019110 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 02:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5D6pSJI016154 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 02:51:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5D6osC03385; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:50:54 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:50:54 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Thu Jun 13 00:50:53 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020613023144.008f5e40@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 02:31:44 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Georgia In-Reply-To: <052d01c21255$955522e0$21a428d8@hppav> References: <00be01c21252$8389ce60$f2a4ec0c@JANA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1950 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: L36!!b')!!U`@!!\NY!! At 05:10 PM 6/12/02 -0400, you wrote: >Jana, > >I really don't know what the AB can do. >I have emailed John and am waiting for >his reply. It is my understanding that he >is in favor of mediation. However, I do >not hold any hopes that the management >of GA, will cooperate without bias. You apparently have bias as well since you seem to 'know' what others will do. >Keith has spoken and everyone has taken >up the sword with him. Although they are >wrong, as you have pointed out, Tim got >someone else to do his dirty work and now >that John is gone, they will probably never >allow him to be treated as others. Since you don't know all the facts - are you not jumping the gun with this paragraph? My questions are: - will this proposed mediation follow the rules previously outlined by our rules - wherein each Board member selects 5 persons on Board-l with the top 5 being the Grievance Committee - OR will the same scenario happen to fill the two empty slots? - will a representative of the Georgia Grievance Committee be allowed to be present to answer questions regarding their activities? I certainly can't for I don't know what all went on there after they got started other than they requested input from Keith, John and myself. Tim From ???@??? Thu Jun 13 18:54:12 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5DJm1V2016451 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5DJlxJI015041 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5DJkUA01042; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:46:30 -0600 Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:46:30 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@tir.com Thu Jun 13 13:46:29 2002 Message-ID: <00e801c21312$80c61740$13a328d8@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <00be01c21252$8389ce60$f2a4ec0c@JANA> <3.0.5.32.20020613023144.008f5e40@mail.chattanooga.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Georgia Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:42:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1955 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ]+*#!@T_!!IIW"!-9K!! > > You apparently have bias as well since you seem to 'know' > what others will do. > Thanks Tim, but I honestly, already, admitted my bias. My bias is that what happened was wrong and handled wrong from Keith, to you, and through the committee. That is why I was unwilling to act in any capacity in contacting the committee. > > Since you don't know all the facts - are you not jumping > the gun with this paragraph? > I don't think so. Had anyone been willing to do what was right in the matter, it would have been very simple to follow the guidelines in the first place and you were in a position to ensure that happened. The Board shouldn't have even been placed in a position to have to hear a matter that is so plainly cut and dried. Ron From ???@??? Fri Jun 21 20:49:06 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5LHq7V2005467 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5LHq5JI005823 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5LHpEC11205; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:51:14 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:51:14 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Fri Jun 21 11:51:14 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020621104907.00a0ba40@imap.cs.com> X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:50:31 -0700 Old-To: board-exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Richard Harrison Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Board-Exec] What's Happening? Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1957 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: _:@!!9!`!!YcL"!`h@"! What's happening with the Rigdon vs Georgia grievance? Am I missing some email or has everyone been silent? -Isaiah Richard Harrison Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 06:00:36 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5P3ChV2011331 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:12:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5P3CfJT024452 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5P3C2E15007; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:12:02 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:12:02 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tsvickery@adelphia.net Mon Jun 24 21:12:02 2002 Message-ID: <005601c21bf1$37491580$a0263218@bur.adelphia.net> From: "Tina S Vickery" Old-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624193725.009faec0@imap.cs.com> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:37:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1959 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: $L6"!f)$"!IH-!!)+i!! And may I add, that all parties, for the sole purpose of political posturing for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance in public forums associated with USGenWeb. Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Harrison To: Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:02 PM Subject: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > Here is a proposal for resolution of the difficulties in GAGenWeb: > > 1) That both parties recognize the seriousness of this matter and the > negative effect of the current situation on GAGenWeb and on The USGenWeb > Project; that they determine to resolve the situation in the most amicable > manner possible, and in an effort to do so each take a step back from their > previously held positions. > > 2) That the GAGenWeb Grievance Committee invite John Rigdon to submit > appropriate pages for the Richmond County site that meet the letter and the > spirit of the GAGenWeb and USGenWeb Project guidelines. That the Committee > fairly evaluate the pages John Rigdon submits, and when he has submitted > suitable ones, restore him as Richmond County Coordinator. > > 3) That John Rigdon withdraw his griveance against Tim Stowell and direct > his resources toward creating suitable pages. > > 4) That both parties agree that a breakdown in communications and a lack of > cooperation were significant contributors to the present situation and that > they resolve to make a stronger effort to to communicate and cooperate in > the future, especially in situations involving significant differences of > opinion. > > > > Richard Harrison > Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm > Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm > From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 06:00:36 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5P34dV2010833 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:04:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5P34bJT023595 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:04:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5P33pC07912; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:03:51 -0600 Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:03:51 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Mon Jun 24 21:03:50 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624193725.009faec0@imap.cs.com> X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:02:59 -0700 Old-To: board-exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Richard Harrison Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1958 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: [78!!SVe!!(Zg!!/7W"! Here is a proposal for resolution of the difficulties in GAGenWeb: 1) That both parties recognize the seriousness of this matter and the negative effect of the current situation on GAGenWeb and on The USGenWeb Project; that they determine to resolve the situation in the most amicable manner possible, and in an effort to do so each take a step back from their previously held positions. 2) That the GAGenWeb Grievance Committee invite John Rigdon to submit appropriate pages for the Richmond County site that meet the letter and the spirit of the GAGenWeb and USGenWeb Project guidelines. That the Committee fairly evaluate the pages John Rigdon submits, and when he has submitted suitable ones, restore him as Richmond County Coordinator. 3) That John Rigdon withdraw his griveance against Tim Stowell and direct his resources toward creating suitable pages. 4) That both parties agree that a breakdown in communications and a lack of cooperation were significant contributors to the present situation and that they resolve to make a stronger effort to to communicate and cooperate in the future, especially in situations involving significant differences of opinion. Richard Harrison Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 06:00:45 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5P77uV2025943 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:07:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5P77tJT017095 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:07:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5P75JS09900; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:05:19 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:05:19 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Tue Jun 25 01:05:18 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020625002318.00ac3890@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:23:18 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] What's Happening? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020621104907.00a0ba40@imap.cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1960 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: mcF!!45##!hi2"!+Rl!! At 10:50 AM 6/21/02 -0700, you wrote: >What's happening with the Rigdon vs Georgia grievance? Am I missing some >email or has everyone been silent? > >-Isaiah > >Richard Harrison >Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt As far as GAGenWeb is concerned this issue is DOA. Tim From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 06:00:45 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5P7oFV2028421 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5P7oDJT021153 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:50:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5P7mDD08413; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:48:13 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:48:13 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Tue Jun 25 01:48:12 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020625032843.00b37eb0@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:28:43 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624193725.009faec0@imap.cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1961 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: )UM"!Cm/!!pfX!!AO##! This note was received after I sent my message to this forum. I've copied it to the grievance committee along with Tina's note stripped of who said what. Tim At 08:02 PM 6/24/02 -0700, you wrote: >Here is a proposal for resolution of the difficulties in GAGenWeb: > >1) That both parties recognize the seriousness of this matter and the >negative effect of the current situation on GAGenWeb and on The USGenWeb >Project; that they determine to resolve the situation in the most amicable >manner possible, and in an effort to do so each take a step back from their >previously held positions. > >2) That the GAGenWeb Grievance Committee invite John Rigdon to submit >appropriate pages for the Richmond County site that meet the letter and the >spirit of the GAGenWeb and USGenWeb Project guidelines. That the Committee >fairly evaluate the pages John Rigdon submits, and when he has submitted >suitable ones, restore him as Richmond County Coordinator. > >3) That John Rigdon withdraw his griveance against Tim Stowell and direct >his resources toward creating suitable pages. > >4) That both parties agree that a breakdown in communications and a lack of >cooperation were significant contributors to the present situation and that >they resolve to make a stronger effort to to communicate and cooperate in >the future, especially in situations involving significant differences of >opinion. > > > >Richard Harrison >Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm >Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm > > From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 07:15:26 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PAtFV2008348 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:55:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PAtEJT007852 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:55:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5PArUv17704; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 04:53:30 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 04:53:30 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tsvickery@adelphia.net Tue Jun 25 04:53:30 2002 Message-ID: <000c01c21c36$6f976640$66c93718@agstme.adelphia.net> From: "Tina S Vickery" Old-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20020625032843.00b37eb0@mail.chattanooga.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:52:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1962 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: %1A"!b~8"!DZB"!"L&#! Tim, I did not intend my note "stripped of who said what" to go any where but where I sent it. Just exactly where, prey tell did you send it? Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Stowell To: Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:28 AM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > This note was received after I sent my message to this forum. I've > copied it to the grievance committee along with Tina's note > stripped of who said what. > > Tim > > At 08:02 PM 6/24/02 -0700, you wrote: > >Here is a proposal for resolution of the difficulties in GAGenWeb: > > > >1) That both parties recognize the seriousness of this matter and the > >negative effect of the current situation on GAGenWeb and on The USGenWeb > >Project; that they determine to resolve the situation in the most amicable > >manner possible, and in an effort to do so each take a step back from their > >previously held positions. > > > >2) That the GAGenWeb Grievance Committee invite John Rigdon to submit > >appropriate pages for the Richmond County site that meet the letter and the > >spirit of the GAGenWeb and USGenWeb Project guidelines. That the Committee > >fairly evaluate the pages John Rigdon submits, and when he has submitted > >suitable ones, restore him as Richmond County Coordinator. > > > >3) That John Rigdon withdraw his griveance against Tim Stowell and direct > >his resources toward creating suitable pages. > > > >4) That both parties agree that a breakdown in communications and a lack of > >cooperation were significant contributors to the present situation and that > >they resolve to make a stronger effort to to communicate and cooperate in > >the future, especially in situations involving significant differences of > >opinion. > > > > > > > >Richard Harrison > >Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: > >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm > >Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm > > > > > From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 06:45:27 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PAVcV2007169 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:31:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PAVbJT005687 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:31:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GY900MU8BSXQN@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for merope@radix.net; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:29:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 06:38:38 -0400 From: merope Subject: Observation X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: BOARD-EXEC: ; Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625063316.00a90be0@radix.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-UIDL: Xf-!!j?f"!ce<"!f0B!! It strikes me as more than a little unfair that one party to the GAGenWeb grievance has access to the forum on which it is being discussed while the other party to the grievance does not have this access. Not only that, but the party with access is sharing the suggestions put forth on the secret list with non-Board members prior to the Board having discussed them, voted on them, or even having determined that it is going to address the grievance in the first place. -Teresa merope@radix.net From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 18:12:56 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QAdHV2023290 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:39:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QAdGJT020530 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:39:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout05.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GYB00C686VERC@mtaout05.icomcast.net> for merope@radix.net; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:38:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:47:20 -0400 From: merope Subject: Recap X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: BOARD-EXEC: ; Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626062727.00aa1830@radix.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-UIDL: pXj"!NR~!!MOC!!"cd!! So let me see if I have this down correctly: John Rigdon, who is a candidate for NC, files a grievance against Tim Stowell following his abrubt and rather curious dismissal from the GAGenWeb just prior to the upcoming election. Another candidate for NC is on the committee that conveniently decided that this dismissal was appropriate. That candidate is now telling people that the provisions providing for member's rights in the recently enacted GAGenWeb guidelines do not apply in this circumstance. Now the _other_ candidate for the NC position has proposed some sort of "solution" but does not wish to be publicly affiliated with it. Tim Stowell has told us that the issue is a dead one, so far as the GAGW Council is concerned, although he forwarded the personal suggestion of a rival NC candidate to the Council for its consideration prior to any discussion of it by this Board. Yet another person involved in this dispute may have some involvement with the election software used to compile votes. I love the smell of collusion in the morning. The Board is apparently content that Tim is able to participate in these discussions, while John must rely on the defense of members who may not discuss the deliberations with him. Tim on the other hand has already shared privileged information with the members of the GAGW Council. I would be curious to know the Council's response before the Board discusses how to dispose of Richard's proposed solution. There is no point in forwarding it to John if the Council is going to or has already rejected it out of hand. -Teresa merope@radix.net From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 18:44:21 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QMO4V2022721 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QMO3JT015969 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:24:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jadth.radix.net (pcp01205918pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.227.225]) by mtaout05.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GYC00G9L3K1GX@mtaout05.icomcast.net> for merope@radix.net; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:24:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:33:19 -0400 From: merope Subject: Ah well, moot point X-Sender: merope@radix.net To: BOARD-EXEC: ; Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626183222.00aa3850@radix.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-UIDL: WZ2!!:IC"!6 Richmond county GA has a new host http://www.rootsweb.com/~garichmo/ Guess there's no point in continuing the "discussion". Who gets to inform John? -Teresa merope@radix.net From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 19:01:48 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PBDjV2009273 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PBDiJT009511 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5PBDCs14110; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 05:13:12 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 05:13:12 -0600 X-Original-Sender: usgenweb@cox.net Tue Jun 25 05:13:12 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625070309.028e5e20@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: usgenweb@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:15:08 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20020625032843.00b37eb0@mail.chattanooga.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624193725.009faec0@imap.cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1963 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: AEY"!nS7!!4MF!!Aj:!! Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2 At 03:28 AM 6/25/02 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: >This note was received after I sent my message to this forum. I've >copied it to the grievance committee along with Tina's note >stripped of who said what. Forwarding messages from this list is not permitted, stripping who said what does not change that. I am considering whether or not to remove you from this list. From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 19:01:48 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PG7HV2003592 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PG7FJT015598 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5PG3RP07987; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:03:27 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:03:27 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Tue Jun 25 10:03:26 2002 Message-ID: <45176.66.129.5.5.1025021003.squirrel@control.chattanooga.net> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:03:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia From: "Tim Stowell" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625070309.028e5e20@pop.east.cox.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625070309.028e5e20@pop.east.cox.net> Reply-To: tstowell@chattanooga.net X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.0.6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1964 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: J)3!!59c"!\#g"!&*>!! Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 21 > At 03:28 AM 6/25/02 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: >>This note was received after I sent my message to this forum. I've >>copied it to the grievance committee along with Tina's note >>stripped of who said what. > > Forwarding messages from this list is not permitted, stripping who said > what does not change that. I am considering whether or not to remove > you from this list. I did not forward any message. I just copied content as Mr. Eason has also done with respect to this situation. In those instances, I believe, he said he had informed the Georgia Grievance Committee of the same thing since they were the ones investigating and ruling on the situation. In Georgia our management team makes decisions as a team and as this is something they would at some point have to rule on, it seemed expedient that they be made aware of it. If I have offended the members who posted those posts, I apologize. Whether or not they will forgive, I don't know. If the NC wishes to unsub me from this list then will the NC also be unsubbing Mr. Eason or Ms. Lindquist? I rather doubt it. As to the Georgia situation, Mr. Rigdon was removed under the same set of circumstances that a previous CC had been removed in Ware County - for having a commercial site with little or no free content. The NC as NY SC also removed the Abbys in a very short period of time one weekend a couple of years back for having commercial site. I used that as part of our basis in removing John. ------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- Tim Stowell tstowell@chattanooga.net From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 19:01:58 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PLQvV2001725 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PLQuJT027823 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5PLPJa17448; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:25:19 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:25:19 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tsvickery@adelphia.net Tue Jun 25 15:25:19 2002 Message-ID: <000e01c21c8e$b16debe0$66c93718@agstme.adelphia.net> From: "Tina S Vickery" Old-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624193725.009faec0@imap.cs.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624210521.009ef1c0@imap.cs.com> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:24:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1966 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: G>*!!8+##!K(N!!Ja<"! Richard, If that is the case, I am curious as to your reason for making the proposal? Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Harrison To: Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > At 10:37 PM 6/24/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >And may I add, that all parties, for the sole purpose of political posturing > >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance in public > >forums associated with USGenWeb. > > > >Tina > > > Good Point! > > Additionally, because John Rigdon and Richard Pettys are also candidates > for NC in the election, I can't be publicly associated with any > negotiations involved in this grievance. > > -Isaiah > > > Richard Harrison > Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm > Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm > From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 19:01:58 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PLQbV2001699 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PLQaJT027794 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5PLPif18065; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:25:44 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:25:44 -0600 X-Original-Sender: usgenweb@cox.net Tue Jun 25 15:25:43 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625172353.00aa0cb0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: usgenweb@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:27:44 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <45176.66.129.5.5.1025021003.squirrel@control.chattanooga.n et> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625070309.028e5e20@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20020625070309.028e5e20@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1967 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: hCP"!V2T"!YR2!!5m?"! At 12:03 PM 6/25/02 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: >If the NC wishes to unsub me from this list then will the NC also be >unsubbing Mr. Eason or Ms. Lindquist? I rather doubt it. and your instances of them having forwarded messages from the Exec list? >The NC as NY SC also removed the Abbys in a very short period of time one >weekend a couple of years back for having commercial site. I used that as >part of our basis in removing John. The Abbys had been requested to comply for some time and were removed when the sites vanished and were replaced by a page touting another organization (and even then they were given time to change that) not for anything commercial. From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 19:01:58 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PLgNV2003134 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:42:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PLgLJT029871 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5PLf5I14876; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:41:05 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:41:05 -0600 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Tue Jun 25 15:41:04 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020625163907.02d68e28@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:41:07 -0500 Old-To: board-exec-l@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625063316.00a90be0@radix.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: Observation Resent-Message-ID: <673AqC.A.HoD.wNOG9@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1968 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: dj'"!`2*"!p>T"!Jll"! I am sorry, this strikes me as absolutely ludicrous. You are worried about someone not having access to board discussion, while you post whatever you please to your personal trash list and NO ONE has access to that to dispute anything???? Give me a break! Betsy On 06:38 AM 6/25/2002 -0400, merope said: >It strikes me as more than a little unfair that one party to the GAGenWeb >grievance has access to the forum on which it is being discussed while >the other party to the grievance does not have this access. Not only >that, but the party with access is sharing the suggestions put forth on >the secret list with non-Board members prior to the Board having discussed >them, voted on them, or even having determined that it is going to address >the grievance in the first place. > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net > From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 20:49:52 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PN8aV2010595 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PN8YJT010486 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:08:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5PN7YP28440; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:07:34 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:07:34 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Tue Jun 25 17:07:34 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625160356.009ffc00@imap.cs.com> X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:06:21 -0700 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Richard Harrison Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <000e01c21c8e$b16debe0$66c93718@agstme.adelphia.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624193725.009faec0@imap.cs.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020624210521.009ef1c0@imap.cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1969 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: '2W!!W";!!/>-"!\:N"! At 05:24 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Richard, > >If that is the case, I am curious as to your reason for making the proposal? > >Tina I made the proposal because I thought it would be a good way to resolve the problem, or at least a way to get someone else on the Board to come up with an alternative. -Isaiah Richard Harrison Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 20:49:52 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PNnOV2013204 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:49:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PNnNJT015427 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5PNmme08951; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:48:48 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:48:48 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Jun 25 17:48:48 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:48:20 -0700 Message-ID: <010c01c21ca2$ca21af00$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624193725.009faec0@imap.cs.com> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1970 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: SWg"!8Ac!!CV4"!*+W!! OK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both parties taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group needs to try to see the situation from the opposite perspective and put the Project instead of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with proposals #2&3 adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what the AB opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with Tina's concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political posturing for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance in public forums associated with USGenWeb." Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what is stated there did create the current problem, both parties need to compose some kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? Are we waiting for the NC or what? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 8:03 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Here is a proposal for resolution of the difficulties in GAGenWeb: 1) That both parties recognize the seriousness of this matter and the negative effect of the current situation on GAGenWeb and on The USGenWeb Project; that they determine to resolve the situation in the most amicable manner possible, and in an effort to do so each take a step back from their previously held positions. 2) That the GAGenWeb Grievance Committee invite John Rigdon to submit appropriate pages for the Richmond County site that meet the letter and the spirit of the GAGenWeb and USGenWeb Project guidelines. That the Committee fairly evaluate the pages John Rigdon submits, and when he has submitted suitable ones, restore him as Richmond County Coordinator. 3) That John Rigdon withdraw his griveance against Tim Stowell and direct his resources toward creating suitable pages. 4) That both parties agree that a breakdown in communications and a lack of cooperation were significant contributors to the present situation and that they resolve to make a stronger effort to to communicate and cooperate in the future, especially in situations involving significant differences of opinion. Richard Harrison Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 18:12:57 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QF7IV2012747 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QF7GJT020156 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5QF6ZU07459; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:06:35 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:06:35 -0600 X-Original-Sender: bremerr@oclc.org Wed Jun 26 09:06:34 2002 Message-ID: <90D12689EF7A0543AB11426D75D6ABC51A95E1@oa4-server.oa.oclc.org> From: "Bremer,Robert" Old-To: "'Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com'" Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Observation Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:49:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1987 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: &;3"!5gf"!W<&"!beg"! Betsy, your comments strike me as absolutely ludicrous by dredging up the DBS which is completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Why should Tim have access to Board-Exec and all the messages related to Rigdon vs. GAGenWeb with the ability to discuss his side of the issue and counter arguments and opinions when the other party does not? How is that the least bit fair? If there is going to be a discussion of the resolution of Rigdon vs. GAGenWeb on this list, Tim should be unsubbed before any further discussion is permitted and the usual conclusion is reached. Robert Bremer bremerr@oclc.org -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:41 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: Observation I am sorry, this strikes me as absolutely ludicrous. You are worried about someone not having access to board discussion, while you post whatever you please to your personal trash list and NO ONE has access to that to dispute anything???? Give me a break! Betsy On 06:38 AM 6/25/2002 -0400, merope said: >It strikes me as more than a little unfair that one party to the GAGenWeb >grievance has access to the forum on which it is being discussed while >the other party to the grievance does not have this access. Not only >that, but the party with access is sharing the suggestions put forth on >the secret list with non-Board members prior to the Board having discussed >them, voted on them, or even having determined that it is going to address >the grievance in the first place. > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q1lZV2021267 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q1lYJT028916 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:47:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q1kus09732; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:46:56 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:46:56 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Tue Jun 25 19:46:55 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625184156.00a01550@imap.cs.com> X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:44:54 -0700 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Richard Harrison Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <010c01c21ca2$ca21af00$f2a4ec0c@JANA> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624193725.009faec0@imap.cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Apparently-From: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1971 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: g@V!!pnL"!Xag"!L@L"! At 04:48 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: >OK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. > >I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both parties >taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group needs to try to see >the situation from the opposite perspective and put the Project instead >of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with proposals #2&3 >adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what the AB >opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with Tina's >concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political posturing >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance in >public forums associated with USGenWeb." > >Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what is stated >there did create the current problem, both parties need to compose some >kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. > >What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? Are we >waiting for the NC or what? > >Jana Jana- You have permission to forward my proposal to John Rigdon. Tim has already sent it to the Grievance Committee. Of course, you will need to get Tina's permission to forward her additional point. Then we wait for responses. -Isaiah Richard Harrison Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q24XV2022373 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:04:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q24VJT000722 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q23rV09480; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:03:53 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:03:53 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Jun 25 20:03:52 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:03:23 -0700 Message-ID: <011801c21cb5$a749b8c0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625184156.00a01550@imap.cs.com> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1972 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ij)#!O9a!!=?-!!~nI"! Tina, Do I have your permission? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:45 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia At 04:48 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: >OK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. > >I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both parties >taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group needs to try to see >the situation from the opposite perspective and put the Project instead >of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with proposals #2&3 >adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what the AB >opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with Tina's >concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political posturing >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance in >public forums associated with USGenWeb." > >Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what is stated >there did create the current problem, both parties need to compose some >kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. > >What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? Are we >waiting for the NC or what? > >Jana Jana- You have permission to forward my proposal to John Rigdon. Tim has already sent it to the Grievance Committee. Of course, you will need to get Tina's permission to forward her additional point. Then we wait for responses. -Isaiah Richard Harrison Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q29jV2022800 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q29hJT001303 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q256Y11037; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:05:06 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:05:06 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Jun 25 20:05:06 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:04:37 -0700 Message-ID: <011901c21cb5$d36030b0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625184156.00a01550@imap.cs.com> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1973 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: >#@"!76*!!J-h"!SOK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. > >I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both parties >taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group needs to try to see >the situation from the opposite perspective and put the Project instead >of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with proposals #2&3 >adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what the AB >opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with Tina's >concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political posturing >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance in >public forums associated with USGenWeb." > >Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what is stated >there did create the current problem, both parties need to compose some >kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. > >What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? Are we >waiting for the NC or what? > >Jana Jana- You have permission to forward my proposal to John Rigdon. Tim has already sent it to the Grievance Committee. Of course, you will need to get Tina's permission to forward her additional point. Then we wait for responses. -Isaiah Richard Harrison Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from news1.radix.net (news1.radix.net [207.192.128.41]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q25VV2022430 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 1starnet.com (mail-three.1starnet.com [207.243.104.37]) by news1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q25T0p014816 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sweep2.1starnet.com [207.243.104.27] by 1starnet.com (SMTPD32-7.10) id A168D780080; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:05:28 -0500 Received: from betsyhome.mail.1starnet.com ([207.243.111.82]) by sweep2.1starnet.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.11) with SMTP id M2002062521052501738 ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:05:27 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020625204452.02afca70@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:05:34 -0500 To: merope From: Betsy Mills Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Observation Cc: usgenweb@cox.net, tngibson@att.net, pamreid@comcast.net, gingerh@shawneelink.com, bremerr@oclc.org, TVick65536@aol.com, nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, ArtDept@compuserve.com, kheidel@tri.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, ky.quest@gte.net, wchs@getgoin.net, janab@websweweave.net, rkeason@tir.com In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625190642.00a9c120@radix.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-UIDL: VYP"!9>:!!l1)"!0KX!! Take me off your secret cc: list. You can post your message on board-exec list like an adult. Your using a secret cc: list instead of board-exec is childish and ridiculous and misleading to your doting public, and I don't want to be part of it. If you send me another message like this I WILL forward it to every list I am on with a note that "Teresa obviously doesn't know the correct address for the board-exec list." My apologies to Madame NC for replying to Teresa's message on Board-Exec and therefore enabling her. Betsy On 07:09 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, merope said: >>X-Sender: usgenweb@pop.east.cox.net >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 >>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:34:37 -0400 >>To: merope >>From: Holly Timm >>Subject: Re: Observation >>X-Status: >>X-Keywords: >> >> >>If you wish your message to appear on Board-Exec, send it correctly to >>Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com --- as to unfairness, Mr Rigdon is being ably >>defended by Ron Eason and Tim Stowell is on the verge if not over the >>edge of being removed from the list for forwarding mail from it. > >If I had wished it to go to the secret list I would have sent it there. > >I find it very instructive that John must be "ably defended" by someone >who cannot even discuss the deliberations with him, while Tim is free to >actively participate in any discussion we may have. > >-Teresa > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q2SBV2024369 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q2S9JT003421 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q2RLJ12896; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:27:21 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:27:21 -0600 X-Original-Sender: usgenweb@cox.net Tue Jun 25 20:27:21 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625221851.02729bf0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: usgenweb@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:29:24 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <011901c21cb5$d36030b0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625184156.00a01550@imap.cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1974 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: e>-!!^:V!! At 07:04 PM 6/25/02 -0700, Jana Black wrote: >Isaiah, does it go with or w/o your name??? Jana You better be extremely clear that this is your idea to forward this Jana and that it is Richard's proposal... not a board action in any way, manner, or form. Richard has posted it and you Jana have agreed with it. That's it, no other comments or discussion by anyone and yet you presume to pass the proposal on, directing a state what it should do about a grievance as if the board has come to consensus or agreed upon this action. I do not think that a proposal by one and agreement by one other is sufficient grounds to do so particularly in light of your (Jana's) previously stated views that state actions are not addressable by this body. >-----Original Message----- >From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] >Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:45 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > >At 04:48 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >OK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. > > > >I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both parties > >taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group needs to try to see > > >the situation from the opposite perspective and put the Project instead > > >of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with proposals #2&3 > > >adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what the AB > >opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with Tina's > >concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political posturing > > >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance in > >public forums associated with USGenWeb." > > > >Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what is stated > >there did create the current problem, both parties need to compose some > > >kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. > > > >What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? Are we > >waiting for the NC or what? > > > >Jana > >Jana- > >You have permission to forward my proposal to John Rigdon. Tim has >already >sent it to the Grievance Committee. Of course, you will need to get >Tina's >permission to forward her additional point. > >Then we wait for responses. > >-Isaiah > > >Richard Harrison >Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm >Visit The Art Department :: >http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q2aVV2024871 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:36:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q2aTJT004349 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:36:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q2ZqG21177; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:35:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:35:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Tue Jun 25 20:35:52 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625193140.00a05860@imap.cs.com> X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:34:06 -0700 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Richard Harrison Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <011901c21cb5$d36030b0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625184156.00a01550@imap.cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Apparently-From: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1975 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: >9^"!IM%"!4Tb"!#0n!! At 07:04 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Isaiah, does it go with or w/o your name??? Jana I think it best not to have my name attached. You can say that you and some others put it together. You should also indicate it is a private proposal--not an official position of the Board. -Isaiah Richard Harrison Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q2cuV2025089 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q2ctJT004656 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:38:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q2cHg23942; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:38:17 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:38:17 -0600 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Tue Jun 25 20:38:16 2002 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020625213622.02a72640@mail.1starnet.com> X-Sender: betsym@mail.1starnet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:38:24 -0500 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Betsy Mills Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625221851.02729bf0@pop.east.cox.net> References: <011901c21cb5$d36030b0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> <5.1.0.14.0.20020625184156.00a01550@imap.cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1976 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: PJ;!!W]9!!*2l"!"ib!! Okay, I will go on record that this is a good idea. ANYTHING to attempt to end this mess is better than sitting on our hands and doing nothing which is what has been done all this year. So, if a majority / several of us / most of us express our agreement that this is a good idea, can we proceed?? Betsy On 10:29 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, Holly Timm said: >At 07:04 PM 6/25/02 -0700, Jana Black wrote: >>Isaiah, does it go with or w/o your name??? Jana > >You better be extremely clear that this is your idea to forward this Jana >and that it is Richard's proposal... not a board action in any way, >manner, or form. Richard has posted it and you Jana have agreed with it. >That's it, no other comments or discussion by anyone and yet you presume >to pass the proposal on, directing a state what it should do about a >grievance as if the board has come to consensus or agreed upon this >action. I do not think that a proposal by one and agreement by one other >is sufficient grounds to do so particularly in light of your (Jana's) >previously stated views that state actions are not addressable by this body. > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:45 PM >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >>Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia >> >> >>At 04:48 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: >> >OK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. >> > >> >I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both parties >> >taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group needs to try to see >> >> >the situation from the opposite perspective and put the Project instead >> >> >of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with proposals #2&3 >> >> >adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what the AB >> >opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with Tina's >> >concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political posturing >> >> >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance in >> >public forums associated with USGenWeb." >> > >> >Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what is stated >> >there did create the current problem, both parties need to compose some >> >> >kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. >> > >> >What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? Are we >> >waiting for the NC or what? >> > >> >Jana >> >>Jana- >> >>You have permission to forward my proposal to John Rigdon. Tim has >>already >>sent it to the Grievance Committee. Of course, you will need to get >>Tina's >>permission to forward her additional point. >> >>Then we wait for responses. >> >>-Isaiah >> >> >>Richard Harrison >>Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: >>http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm >>Visit The Art Department :: >>http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q35DV2026729 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q35BJT009337 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q34Tp32169; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:04:29 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:04:29 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Tue Jun 25 21:04:28 2002 Message-ID: <001201c21cbe$689a45a0$86f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <011901c21cb5$d36030b0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> <5.1.0.14.0.20020625184156.00a01550@imap.cs.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020625213622.02a72640@mail.1starnet.com> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:06:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1977 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: i3T"!Am="!(T\"!K@@"! I agree with Jana and Isaiah. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betsy Mills" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:38 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > Okay, I will go on record that this is a good idea. ANYTHING to attempt to > end this mess is better than sitting on our hands and doing nothing which > is what has been done all this year. > > So, if a majority / several of us / most of us express our agreement that > this is a good idea, can we proceed?? > > Betsy > > > On 10:29 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, Holly Timm said: > >At 07:04 PM 6/25/02 -0700, Jana Black wrote: > >>Isaiah, does it go with or w/o your name??? Jana > > > >You better be extremely clear that this is your idea to forward this Jana > >and that it is Richard's proposal... not a board action in any way, > >manner, or form. Richard has posted it and you Jana have agreed with it. > >That's it, no other comments or discussion by anyone and yet you presume > >to pass the proposal on, directing a state what it should do about a > >grievance as if the board has come to consensus or agreed upon this > >action. I do not think that a proposal by one and agreement by one other > >is sufficient grounds to do so particularly in light of your (Jana's) > >previously stated views that state actions are not addressable by this body. > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] > >>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:45 PM > >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > >>Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > >> > >> > >>At 04:48 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >> >OK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. > >> > > >> >I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both parties > >> >taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group needs to try to see > >> > >> >the situation from the opposite perspective and put the Project instead > >> > >> >of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with proposals #2&3 > >> > >> >adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what the AB > >> >opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with Tina's > >> >concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political posturing > >> > >> >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance in > >> >public forums associated with USGenWeb." > >> > > >> >Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what is stated > >> >there did create the current problem, both parties need to compose some > >> > >> >kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. > >> > > >> >What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? Are we > >> >waiting for the NC or what? > >> > > >> >Jana > >> > >>Jana- > >> > >>You have permission to forward my proposal to John Rigdon. Tim has > >>already > >>sent it to the Grievance Committee. Of course, you will need to get > >>Tina's > >>permission to forward her additional point. > >> > >>Then we wait for responses. > >> > >>-Isaiah > >> > >> > >>Richard Harrison > >>Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: > >>http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm > >>Visit The Art Department :: > >>http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm > > > > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q3hKV2029422 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:43:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q3hIJT013284 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:43:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q3gPD09478; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:42:25 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:42:25 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Jun 25 21:42:24 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:41:55 -0700 Message-ID: <012c01c21cc3$6abd3360$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001201c21cbe$689a45a0$86f499cd@sasnak.net> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1978 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: +RN!!oEk!!B'6"!A$?"! Knowing that Phyllis and other AB members do not respond in the evening, I will wait until tomorrow to send this on to John Rigdon, including as many names as choose to participate. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 8:06 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia I agree with Jana and Isaiah. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betsy Mills" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:38 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > Okay, I will go on record that this is a good idea. ANYTHING to > attempt to end this mess is better than sitting on our hands and doing > nothing which is what has been done all this year. > > So, if a majority / several of us / most of us express our agreement > that this is a good idea, can we proceed?? > > Betsy > > > On 10:29 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, Holly Timm said: > >At 07:04 PM 6/25/02 -0700, Jana Black wrote: > >>Isaiah, does it go with or w/o your name??? Jana > > > >You better be extremely clear that this is your idea to forward this > >Jana and that it is Richard's proposal... not a board action in any > >way, manner, or form. Richard has posted it and you Jana have agreed > >with it. That's it, no other comments or discussion by anyone and yet > >you presume to pass the proposal on, directing a state what it should > >do about a grievance as if the board has come to consensus or agreed > >upon this action. I do not think that a proposal by one and agreement > >by one other is sufficient grounds to do so particularly in light of > >your (Jana's) previously stated views that state actions are not > >addressable by this body. > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] > >>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:45 PM > >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > >>Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > >> > >> > >>At 04:48 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >> >OK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. > >> > > >> >I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both > >> >parties taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group needs > >> >to try to see > >> > >> >the situation from the opposite perspective and put the Project instead > >> > >> >of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with proposals #2&3 > >> > >> >adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what the > >> >AB > >> >opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with Tina's > >> >concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political posturing > >> > >> >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance > >> >in public forums associated with USGenWeb." > >> > > >> >Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what is > >> >stated there did create the current problem, both parties need to > >> >compose some > >> > >> >kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. > >> > > >> >What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? Are we > >> >waiting for the NC or what? > >> > > >> >Jana > >> > >>Jana- > >> > >>You have permission to forward my proposal to John Rigdon. Tim has > >>already sent it to the Grievance Committee. Of course, you will need > >>to get Tina's > >>permission to forward her additional point. > >> > >>Then we wait for responses. > >> > >>-Isaiah > >> > >> > >>Richard Harrison > >>Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: > >>http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm > >>Visit The Art Department :: > >>http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm > > > > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q3wuV2000481 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:58:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q3wsJT014874 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:58:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q3wAR22799; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:58:10 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:58:10 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Jun 25 21:58:09 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:57:40 -0700 Message-ID: <012d01c21cc5$9e1c1210$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625221851.02729bf0@pop.east.cox.net> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1979 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: !Af"!(,#"!3-["!/~h!! You know Holly, anyone is free to *discuss* if they so choose, and obviously several folks have come forward to do just that. If they do not choose to discuss, then, that is OK as well. I see nothing inappropriate in forwarding something that a number of AB members think is one good, possible suggestion under the circumstances. I know better than to represent it as an official AB action. No one is directing anyone to do anything - we are offering a suggestion for a possible solution. The parties involved can take it, leave it or shove it back at us. If another group of AB members decides they have an alternative idea, I also see no reason for them not to post it on EXEC and ask for support and then suggest it to the involved parties. I think doing this is a huge sight better than appearing to do nothing or not responding at all because we do not have complete consensus. Offering options may just bring the situation closer to resolution - at least we are trying to be responsive. And, for the record, show me where you think I said "state actions are not addressable by this body." I said we have "no real clout" since we can only "suggest," and at any time, any SC or whomever posted the grievance can tell us to shove it and end mediation. I also said that an entire truthful answer offering a variety of alternatives even if it appears to conflict with itself is *much* better than this AB going silent and never responding at all. That I think is entirely irresponsible. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:usgenweb@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:29 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia You better be extremely clear that this is your idea to forward this Jana and that it is Richard's proposal... not a board action in any way, manner, or form. Richard has posted it and you Jana have agreed with it. That's it, no other comments or discussion by anyone and yet you presume to pass the proposal on, directing a state what it should do about a grievance as if the board has come to consensus or agreed upon this action. I do not think that a proposal by one and agreement by one other is sufficient grounds to do so particularly in light of your (Jana's) previously stated views that state actions are not addressable by this body. From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q2qxV2025933 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lakemtao01.cox.net (lakemtao01.cox.net [68.1.17.244]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q2qwJT007244 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:52:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pooh.cox.net ([68.9.38.16]) by lakemtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020626025255.HYPK29627.lakemtao01.cox.net@pooh.cox.net>; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:52:55 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625224809.00a55a10@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: usgenweb@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:55:01 -0400 To: Betsy Mills , merope From: Holly Timm Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Observation Cc: tngibson@att.net, pamreid@comcast.net, gingerh@shawneelink.com, bremerr@oclc.org, TVick65536@aol.com, nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, ArtDept@compuserve.com, kheidel@tri.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, ky.quest@gte.net, wchs@getgoin.net, janab@websweweave.net, rkeason@tir.com In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020625204452.02afca70@mail.1starnet.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020625190642.00a9c120@radix.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-UIDL: 4pY!!1-c"!Pn0!!WTm!! At 09:05 PM 6/25/02 -0500, Betsy Mills wrote: >Take me off your secret cc: list. You can post your message on board-exec >list like an adult. Your using a secret cc: list instead of board-exec is >childish and ridiculous and misleading to your doting public, and I don't >want to be part of it. If you send me another message like this I WILL >forward it to every list I am on with a note that "Teresa obviously >doesn't know the correct address for the board-exec list." > >My apologies to Madame NC for replying to Teresa's message on Board-Exec >and therefore enabling her. Apology accepted >Betsy > > >On 07:09 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, merope said: > >>>X-Sender: usgenweb@pop.east.cox.net >>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 >>>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:34:37 -0400 >>>To: merope >>>From: Holly Timm >>>Subject: Re: Observation >>>X-Status: >>>X-Keywords: >>> >>> >>>If you wish your message to appear on Board-Exec, send it correctly to >>>Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com --- as to unfairness, Mr Rigdon is being ably >>>defended by Ron Eason and Tim Stowell is on the verge if not over the >>>edge of being removed from the list for forwarding mail from it. >> >>If I had wished it to go to the secret list I would have sent it there. >> >>I find it very instructive that John must be "ably defended" by someone >>who cannot even discuss the deliberations with him, while Tim is free to >>actively participate in any discussion we may have. >> >>-Teresa From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q4OHV2001991 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q4OGJT017275 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q4NfF05014; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:23:41 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:23:41 -0600 X-Original-Sender: pamreid@comcast.net Tue Jun 25 22:23:40 2002 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:22:35 -0400 From: Pam Reid Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624193725.009faec0@imap.cs.com> Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1980 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: =j1"!$G5"!BnF!!K9\!! I agree with this proposal. We need to end this in some sort of amicable way. Pam -----Original Message----- From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:03 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Here is a proposal for resolution of the difficulties in GAGenWeb: 1) That both parties recognize the seriousness of this matter and the negative effect of the current situation on GAGenWeb and on The USGenWeb Project; that they determine to resolve the situation in the most amicable manner possible, and in an effort to do so each take a step back from their previously held positions. 2) That the GAGenWeb Grievance Committee invite John Rigdon to submit appropriate pages for the Richmond County site that meet the letter and the spirit of the GAGenWeb and USGenWeb Project guidelines. That the Committee fairly evaluate the pages John Rigdon submits, and when he has submitted suitable ones, restore him as Richmond County Coordinator. 3) That John Rigdon withdraw his griveance against Tim Stowell and direct his resources toward creating suitable pages. 4) That both parties agree that a breakdown in communications and a lack of cooperation were significant contributors to the present situation and that they resolve to make a stronger effort to to communicate and cooperate in the future, especially in situations involving significant differences of opinion. Richard Harrison Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q4UGV2002295 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q4UFJT017824 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q4TWD07969; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:29:32 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:29:32 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tsvickery@adelphia.net Tue Jun 25 22:29:31 2002 Message-ID: <004601c21cc9$e984e480$66c93718@agstme.adelphia.net> From: "Tina S Vickery" Old-To: References: <012c01c21cc3$6abd3360$f2a4ec0c@JANA> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:26:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1981 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: Rak"!>QL"!56;"!>_&"! I sincerely thought that I was participating in a discussion, not something that has admittedly already been shared elsewhere. Silly me, that I thought our posts here to Board-Exec were private. This issue being in regards to a grievance makes it all the worse, imho. While I feel that my statement in response to what Richard posted is indeed something that I would have liked to see included, I take great exception to how this has been handled. Richard, as you have stated, are running for NC, and authored (I assume), the proposal, makes it all the more curious in my book, as to why you wouldn't want your name attached to it? Tim, you never cease to amaze me, with your who me, well everyone else does it mindset. Everyone else doing it, doesn't make it right. And you still haven't answered Holly's question of earlier today. And my very own personal opinion is since you are involved in this grievance, even more care and thought should have been exhibited. And Jana, you have expounded in various emails that the AB has no power in State matters... you have no *jurisdiction*, so to speak, in the region that this grievance is originating from, so I am curious as to why you have chosen this bandwagon and role of messenger? So, bottom line, you do not have my permission to include my discussion(s) anywhere further than this list. Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jana Black To: Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:41 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > Knowing that Phyllis and other AB members do not respond in the evening, > I will wait until tomorrow to send this on to John Rigdon, including as > many names as choose to participate. Jana > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 8:06 PM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > I agree with Jana and Isaiah. > Kathy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Betsy Mills" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:38 PM > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > > Okay, I will go on record that this is a good idea. ANYTHING to > > attempt to end this mess is better than sitting on our hands and doing > > > nothing which is what has been done all this year. > > > > So, if a majority / several of us / most of us express our agreement > > that this is a good idea, can we proceed?? > > > > Betsy > > > > > > On 10:29 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, Holly Timm said: > > >At 07:04 PM 6/25/02 -0700, Jana Black wrote: > > >>Isaiah, does it go with or w/o your name??? Jana > > > > > >You better be extremely clear that this is your idea to forward this > > >Jana and that it is Richard's proposal... not a board action in any > > >way, manner, or form. Richard has posted it and you Jana have agreed > > >with it. That's it, no other comments or discussion by anyone and yet > > > >you presume to pass the proposal on, directing a state what it should > > > >do about a grievance as if the board has come to consensus or agreed > > >upon this action. I do not think that a proposal by one and agreement > > > >by one other is sufficient grounds to do so particularly in light of > > >your (Jana's) previously stated views that state actions are not > > >addressable by this > body. > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] > > >>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:45 PM > > >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > >>Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > >> > > >> > > >>At 04:48 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: > > >> >OK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. > > >> > > > >> >I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both > > >> >parties taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group needs > > >> >to try to > see > > >> > > >> >the situation from the opposite perspective and put the Project > instead > > >> > > >> >of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with proposals > #2&3 > > >> > > >> >adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what the > > >> >AB > > >> >opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with > Tina's > > >> >concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political > posturing > > >> > > >> >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance > > >> >in public forums associated with USGenWeb." > > >> > > > >> >Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what is > > >> >stated there did create the current problem, both parties need to > > >> >compose > some > > >> > > >> >kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. > > >> > > > >> >What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? Are we > > > >> >waiting for the NC or what? > > >> > > > >> >Jana > > >> > > >>Jana- > > >> > > >>You have permission to forward my proposal to John Rigdon. Tim has > > >>already sent it to the Grievance Committee. Of course, you will need > > > >>to get Tina's > > >>permission to forward her additional point. > > >> > > >>Then we wait for responses. > > >> > > >>-Isaiah > > >> > > >> > > >>Richard Harrison > > >>Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: > > >>http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm > > >>Visit The Art Department :: > > >>http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q4XeV2002506 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:33:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q4XeJT018171 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cj34410a (pcp774589pcs.dalect01.va.comcast.net [68.48.162.48]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with SMTP id <0GYA00668Q0245@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for merope@radix.net; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:32:36 -0400 From: Pam Reid Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: Observation In-reply-to: <011a01c21cb7$4ccde4f0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> To: Jana Black , "'Betsy Mills'" , "'merope'" Cc: usgenweb@cox.net, tngibson@att.net, gingerh@shawneelink.com, bremerr@oclc.org, TVick65536@aol.com, nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, ArtDept@compuserve.com, kheidel@tri.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, ky.quest@gte.net, wchs@getgoin.net, rkeason@tir.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-UIDL: [KO"!cTc!!hG)"!2a/"! Ditto for me! -----Original Message----- From: Jana Black [mailto:janab@websweweave.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:15 PM To: 'Betsy Mills'; 'merope' Cc: usgenweb@cox.net; tngibson@att.net; pamreid@comcast.net; gingerh@shawneelink.com; bremerr@oclc.org; TVick65536@aol.com; nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com; ArtDept@compuserve.com; kheidel@tri.net; tstowell@chattanooga.net; ky.quest@gte.net; wchs@getgoin.net; rkeason@tir.com Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: Observation The same goes for me, including an apology to the rest of the AB. If you think this is an important issue, Teresa, demonstrate the courage to bring it to the right place to discuss it. Perhaps your constituents would be interested to know how you deceitfully pretend not to use EXEC but attempt to endrun it bait the AB to get your opinion in still. Note; no one is addressing your issue. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:06 PM To: merope Cc: usgenweb@cox.net; tngibson@att.net; pamreid@comcast.net; gingerh@shawneelink.com; bremerr@oclc.org; TVick65536@aol.com; nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com; ArtDept@compuserve.com; kheidel@tri.net; tstowell@chattanooga.net; ky.quest@gte.net; wchs@getgoin.net; janab@websweweave.net; rkeason@tir.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Observation Take me off your secret cc: list. You can post your message on board-exec list like an adult. Your using a secret cc: list instead of board-exec is childish and ridiculous and misleading to your doting public, and I don't want to be part of it. If you send me another message like this I WILL forward it to every list I am on with a note that "Teresa obviously doesn't know the correct address for the board-exec list." My apologies to Madame NC for replying to Teresa's message on Board-Exec and therefore enabling her. Betsy On 07:09 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, merope said: >>X-Sender: usgenweb@pop.east.cox.net >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 >>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:34:37 -0400 >>To: merope >>From: Holly Timm >>Subject: Re: Observation >>X-Status: >>X-Keywords: >> >> >>If you wish your message to appear on Board-Exec, send it correctly to >>Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com --- as to unfairness, Mr Rigdon is being ably >>defended by Ron Eason and Tim Stowell is on the verge if not over the >>edge of being removed from the list for forwarding mail from it. > >If I had wished it to go to the secret list I would have sent it there. > >I find it very instructive that John must be "ably defended" by someone >who cannot even discuss the deliberations with him, while Tim is free to >actively participate in any discussion we may have. > >-Teresa > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q5EjV2004798 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:14:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q5EiJT022020 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:14:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q5E4v20805; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:14:04 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:14:04 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Jun 25 23:14:04 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:13:39 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c21cd0$3b75b3e0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: <004601c21cc9$e984e480$66c93718@agstme.adelphia.net> Resent-Message-ID: <22mT9.A.1EF.c2UG9@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1982 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: 9)j"!K:]"!;DO"!]Vm"! No problem Tina, I respect your wishes, just as I would respect it if Isaiah decided to add his name along with my name, Betsy's name and Kathy's name - so far. As for your comments regarding my previous statements, it still bothers me that the AB has no "power" however, they still have an obligation to respond and at the very least to offer "suggestions" to those who file a formal grievance - even if the suggestion only offers a variety of options for the groups involved to weigh. I continue to think the AB lack of response to the NC situation was inexcusable and I would prefer not to repeat it here. Glad you could see that a discussion *was* going on however. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Tina S Vickery [mailto:tsvickery@adelphia.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:26 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia I sincerely thought that I was participating in a discussion, not something that has admittedly already been shared elsewhere. Silly me, that I thought our posts here to Board-Exec were private. This issue being in regards to a grievance makes it all the worse, imho. While I feel that my statement in response to what Richard posted is indeed something that I would have liked to see included, I take great exception to how this has been handled. Richard, as you have stated, are running for NC, and authored (I assume), the proposal, makes it all the more curious in my book, as to why you wouldn't want your name attached to it? Tim, you never cease to amaze me, with your who me, well everyone else does it mindset. Everyone else doing it, doesn't make it right. And you still haven't answered Holly's question of earlier today. And my very own personal opinion is since you are involved in this grievance, even more care and thought should have been exhibited. And Jana, you have expounded in various emails that the AB has no power in State matters... you have no *jurisdiction*, so to speak, in the region that this grievance is originating from, so I am curious as to why you have chosen this bandwagon and role of messenger? So, bottom line, you do not have my permission to include my discussion(s) anywhere further than this list. Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jana Black To: Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:41 PM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > Knowing that Phyllis and other AB members do not respond in the > evening, I will wait until tomorrow to send this on to John Rigdon, > including as many names as choose to participate. Jana > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 8:06 PM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > I agree with Jana and Isaiah. > Kathy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Betsy Mills" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:38 PM > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > > Okay, I will go on record that this is a good idea. ANYTHING to > > attempt to end this mess is better than sitting on our hands and > > doing > > > nothing which is what has been done all this year. > > > > So, if a majority / several of us / most of us express our agreement > > that this is a good idea, can we proceed?? > > > > Betsy > > > > > > On 10:29 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, Holly Timm said: > > >At 07:04 PM 6/25/02 -0700, Jana Black wrote: > > >>Isaiah, does it go with or w/o your name??? Jana > > > > > >You better be extremely clear that this is your idea to forward > > >this Jana and that it is Richard's proposal... not a board action > > >in any way, manner, or form. Richard has posted it and you Jana > > >have agreed with it. That's it, no other comments or discussion by > > >anyone and yet > > > >you presume to pass the proposal on, directing a state what it > > >should > > > >do about a grievance as if the board has come to consensus or > > >agreed upon this action. I do not think that a proposal by one and > > >agreement > > > >by one other is sufficient grounds to do so particularly in light > > >of your (Jana's) previously stated views that state actions are not > > >addressable by this > body. > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] > > >>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:45 PM > > >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > >>Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > >> > > >> > > >>At 04:48 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: > > >> >OK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. > > >> > > > >> >I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both > > >> >parties taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group > > >> >needs to try to > see > > >> > > >> >the situation from the opposite perspective and put the Project > instead > > >> > > >> >of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with > > >> >proposals > #2&3 > > >> > > >> >adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what > > >> >the AB > > >> >opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with > Tina's > > >> >concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political > posturing > > >> > > >> >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance > > >> >in public forums associated with USGenWeb." > > >> > > > >> >Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what is > > >> >stated there did create the current problem, both parties need > > >> >to compose > some > > >> > > >> >kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. > > >> > > > >> >What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? Are > > >> >we > > > >> >waiting for the NC or what? > > >> > > > >> >Jana > > >> > > >>Jana- > > >> > > >>You have permission to forward my proposal to John Rigdon. Tim has > > >>already sent it to the Grievance Committee. Of course, you will > > >>need > > > >>to get Tina's > > >>permission to forward her additional point. > > >> > > >>Then we wait for responses. > > >> > > >>-Isaiah > > >> > > >> > > >>Richard Harrison > > >>Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: > > >>http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm > > >>Visit The Art Department :: > > >>http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q5TYV2005659 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q5TXJT023373 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q5Stj31730; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:28:55 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:28:55 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tsvickery@adelphia.net Tue Jun 25 23:28:54 2002 Message-ID: <008601c21cd2$324b49e0$66c93718@agstme.adelphia.net> From: "Tina S Vickery" Old-To: References: <000001c21cd0$3b75b3e0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:25:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1983 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: Uc0"!0hp"!l96!!@a`!! No *was* about it.. I would like the discussion to continue. Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jana Black To: Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:13 AM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > No problem Tina, I respect your wishes, just as I would respect it if > Isaiah decided to add his name along with my name, Betsy's name and > Kathy's name - so far. > > As for your comments regarding my previous statements, it still bothers > me that the AB has no "power" however, they still have an obligation to > respond and at the very least to offer "suggestions" to those who file a > formal grievance - even if the suggestion only offers a variety of > options for the groups involved to weigh. I continue to think the AB > lack of response to the NC situation was inexcusable and I would prefer > not to repeat it here. > > Glad you could see that a discussion *was* going on however. > > Jana > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tina S Vickery [mailto:tsvickery@adelphia.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:26 PM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > I sincerely thought that I was participating in a discussion, not > something that has admittedly already been shared elsewhere. Silly me, > that I thought our posts here to Board-Exec were private. This issue > being in regards to a grievance makes it all the worse, imho. > > While I feel that my statement in response to what Richard posted is > indeed something that I would have liked to see included, I take great > exception to how this has been handled. > > Richard, as you have stated, are running for NC, and authored (I > assume), the proposal, makes it all the more curious in my book, as to > why you wouldn't want your name attached to it? > > Tim, you never cease to amaze me, with your who me, well everyone else > does it mindset. Everyone else doing it, doesn't make it right. And > you still haven't answered Holly's question of earlier today. And my > very own personal opinion is since you are involved in this grievance, > even more care and thought should have been exhibited. > > And Jana, you have expounded in various emails that the AB has no power > in State matters... you have no *jurisdiction*, so to speak, in the > region that this grievance is originating from, so I am curious as to > why you have chosen this bandwagon and role of messenger? > > So, bottom line, you do not have my permission to include my > discussion(s) anywhere further than this list. > > Tina > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jana Black > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:41 PM > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > > Knowing that Phyllis and other AB members do not respond in the > > evening, I will wait until tomorrow to send this on to John Rigdon, > > including as many names as choose to participate. Jana > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 8:06 PM > > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > > > > I agree with Jana and Isaiah. > > Kathy > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Betsy Mills" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:38 PM > > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > > > > > Okay, I will go on record that this is a good idea. ANYTHING to > > > attempt to end this mess is better than sitting on our hands and > > > doing > > > > > nothing which is what has been done all this year. > > > > > > So, if a majority / several of us / most of us express our agreement > > > > that this is a good idea, can we proceed?? > > > > > > Betsy > > > > > > > > > On 10:29 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, Holly Timm said: > > > >At 07:04 PM 6/25/02 -0700, Jana Black wrote: > > > >>Isaiah, does it go with or w/o your name??? Jana > > > > > > > >You better be extremely clear that this is your idea to forward > > > >this Jana and that it is Richard's proposal... not a board action > > > >in any way, manner, or form. Richard has posted it and you Jana > > > >have agreed with it. That's it, no other comments or discussion by > > > >anyone and yet > > > > > >you presume to pass the proposal on, directing a state what it > > > >should > > > > > >do about a grievance as if the board has come to consensus or > > > >agreed upon this action. I do not think that a proposal by one and > > > >agreement > > > > > >by one other is sufficient grounds to do so particularly in light > > > >of your (Jana's) previously stated views that state actions are not > > > > >addressable by this > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > > >>From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] > > > >>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:45 PM > > > >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > > >>Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>At 04:48 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: > > > >> >OK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. > > > >> > > > > >> >I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both > > > >> >parties taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group > > > >> >needs to try to > > see > > > >> > > > >> >the situation from the opposite perspective and put the Project > > instead > > > >> > > > >> >of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with > > > >> >proposals > > #2&3 > > > >> > > > >> >adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what > > > >> >the AB > > > >> >opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with > > Tina's > > > >> >concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political > > posturing > > > >> > > > >> >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance > > > > >> >in public forums associated with USGenWeb." > > > >> > > > > >> >Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what is > > > >> >stated there did create the current problem, both parties need > > > >> >to compose > > some > > > >> > > > >> >kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. > > > >> > > > > >> >What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? Are > > > >> >we > > > > > >> >waiting for the NC or what? > > > >> > > > > >> >Jana > > > >> > > > >>Jana- > > > >> > > > >>You have permission to forward my proposal to John Rigdon. Tim has > > > > >>already sent it to the Grievance Committee. Of course, you will > > > >>need > > > > > >>to get Tina's > > > >>permission to forward her additional point. > > > >> > > > >>Then we wait for responses. > > > >> > > > >>-Isaiah > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>Richard Harrison > > > >>Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: > > > >>http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm > > > >>Visit The Art Department :: > > > >>http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q5gCV2006310 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:42:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q5gBJT024501 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:42:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5Q5fdS08640; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:41:39 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:41:39 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Tue Jun 25 23:41:38 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:41:13 -0700 Message-ID: <000101c21cd4$15674890$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: <008601c21cd2$324b49e0$66c93718@agstme.adelphia.net> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1984 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: U[U"!e~J"!Q>/!!/=F"! I am in total agreement with you Tina. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Tina S Vickery [mailto:tsvickery@adelphia.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:25 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia No *was* about it.. I would like the discussion to continue. Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jana Black To: Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:13 AM Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > No problem Tina, I respect your wishes, just as I would respect it if > Isaiah decided to add his name along with my name, Betsy's name and > Kathy's name - so far. > > As for your comments regarding my previous statements, it still > bothers me that the AB has no "power" however, they still have an > obligation to respond and at the very least to offer "suggestions" to > those who file a formal grievance - even if the suggestion only offers > a variety of options for the groups involved to weigh. I continue to > think the AB lack of response to the NC situation was inexcusable and > I would prefer not to repeat it here. > > Glad you could see that a discussion *was* going on however. > > Jana > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tina S Vickery [mailto:tsvickery@adelphia.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:26 PM > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > I sincerely thought that I was participating in a discussion, not > something that has admittedly already been shared elsewhere. Silly > me, that I thought our posts here to Board-Exec were private. This > issue being in regards to a grievance makes it all the worse, imho. > > While I feel that my statement in response to what Richard posted is > indeed something that I would have liked to see included, I take > great exception to how this has been handled. > > Richard, as you have stated, are running for NC, and authored (I > assume), the proposal, makes it all the more curious in my book, as to > why you wouldn't want your name attached to it? > > Tim, you never cease to amaze me, with your who me, well everyone else > does it mindset. Everyone else doing it, doesn't make it right. And > you still haven't answered Holly's question of earlier today. And my > very own personal opinion is since you are involved in this grievance, > even more care and thought should have been exhibited. > > And Jana, you have expounded in various emails that the AB has no > power in State matters... you have no *jurisdiction*, so to speak, in > the region that this grievance is originating from, so I am curious as > to why you have chosen this bandwagon and role of messenger? > > So, bottom line, you do not have my permission to include my > discussion(s) anywhere further than this list. > > Tina > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jana Black > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:41 PM > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > > Knowing that Phyllis and other AB members do not respond in the > > evening, I will wait until tomorrow to send this on to John Rigdon, > > including as many names as choose to participate. Jana > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kathy Heidel [mailto:kheidel@tri.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 8:06 PM > > To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > > > > I agree with Jana and Isaiah. > > Kathy > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Betsy Mills" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:38 PM > > Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > > > > > Okay, I will go on record that this is a good idea. ANYTHING to > > > attempt to end this mess is better than sitting on our hands and > > > doing > > > > > nothing which is what has been done all this year. > > > > > > So, if a majority / several of us / most of us express our > > > agreement > > > > that this is a good idea, can we proceed?? > > > > > > Betsy > > > > > > > > > On 10:29 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, Holly Timm said: > > > >At 07:04 PM 6/25/02 -0700, Jana Black wrote: > > > >>Isaiah, does it go with or w/o your name??? Jana > > > > > > > >You better be extremely clear that this is your idea to forward > > > >this Jana and that it is Richard's proposal... not a board action > > > >in any way, manner, or form. Richard has posted it and you Jana > > > >have agreed with it. That's it, no other comments or discussion by > > > >anyone and yet > > > > > >you presume to pass the proposal on, directing a state what it > > > >should > > > > > >do about a grievance as if the board has come to consensus or > > > >agreed upon this action. I do not think that a proposal by one and > > > >agreement > > > > > >by one other is sufficient grounds to do so particularly in light > > > >of your (Jana's) previously stated views that state actions are not > > > > >addressable by this > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > > >>From: Richard Harrison [mailto:IsaiahHarrison@cs.com] > > > >>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:45 PM > > > >>To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com > > > >>Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>At 04:48 PM 6/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: > > > >> >OK, I am not running for anything, I will reply. > > > >> > > > > >> >I do not care where it came form initially, I agree that both > > > >> >parties taking a step back is an excellent idea. Each group > > > >> >needs to try to > > see > > > >> > > > >> >the situation from the opposite perspective and put the > > > >> >Project > > instead > > > >> > > > >> >of personalities, etc. into first position. I agree with > > > >> >proposals > > #2&3 > > > >> > > > >> >adding that the AB owes it to the Project to communicate what > > > >> >the AB > > > >> >opinion(s) are even if we do not have consensus. I agree with > > Tina's > > > >> >concept that: "all parties, for the sole purpose of political > > posturing > > > >> > > > >> >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this > > > >> >grievance > > > > >> >in public forums associated with USGenWeb." > > > >> > > > > >> >Not only does #4 make sense, besides acknowledging that what > > > >> >is > > > >> >stated there did create the current problem, both parties need > > > >> >to compose > > some > > > >> > > > >> >kind of statement that healthy communication has resumed. > > > >> > > > > >> >What process do we need to follow to get this ball rolling? > > > >> >Are > > > >> >we > > > > > >> >waiting for the NC or what? > > > >> > > > > >> >Jana > > > >> > > > >>Jana- > > > >> > > > >>You have permission to forward my proposal to John Rigdon. Tim > > > >>has > > > > >>already sent it to the Grievance Committee. Of course, you will > > > >>need > > > > > >>to get Tina's > > > >>permission to forward her additional point. > > > >> > > > >>Then we wait for responses. > > > >> > > > >>-Isaiah > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>Richard Harrison > > > >>Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: > > > >>http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm > > > >>Visit The Art Department :: > > > >>http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 18:12:56 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QBVFV2026030 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:31:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QBVEJT025213 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5QBURT13174; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 05:30:27 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 05:30:27 -0600 X-Original-Sender: usgenweb@cox.net Wed Jun 26 05:30:27 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020626073012.026d1ec0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: usgenweb@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:32:24 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Holly Timm Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <012d01c21cc5$9e1c1210$f2a4ec0c@JANA> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625221851.02729bf0@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1985 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: b@#"!c8,!!&Kp"!m#W!! At 08:57 PM 6/25/02 -0700, Jana Black wrote: >You know Holly, anyone is free to *discuss* if they so choose, and >obviously several folks have come forward to do just that. If they do >not choose to discuss, then, that is OK as well. I see nothing >inappropriate in forwarding something that a number of AB members think >is one good, possible suggestion under the circumstances. I know better >than to represent it as an official AB action. At the point you stated you would be sending it, no other board members had stated anything about such a move, only yourself and the proposer. The proposal is not written as a suggestion. It specifically directs several actions for the state and its grievance committee to take. >No one is directing anyone to do anything - we are offering a suggestion >for a possible solution. The parties involved can take it, leave it or >shove it back at us. If another group of AB members decides they have an >alternative idea, I also see no reason for them not to post it on EXEC >and ask for support and then suggest it to the involved parties. I think >doing this is a huge sight better than appearing to do nothing or not >responding at all because we do not have complete consensus. Offering >options may just bring the situation closer to resolution - at least we >are trying to be responsive. > >And, for the record, show me where you think I said "state actions are >not addressable by this body." I said we have "no real clout" since we >can only "suggest," and at any time, any SC or whomever posted the >grievance can tell us to shove it and end mediation. I also said that an >entire truthful answer offering a variety of alternatives even if it >appears to conflict with itself is *much* better than this AB going >silent and never responding at all. That I think is entirely >irresponsible. > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Holly Timm [mailto:usgenweb@cox.net] >Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:29 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > > >You better be extremely clear that this is your idea to forward this >Jana >and that it is Richard's proposal... not a board action in any way, >manner, >or form. Richard has posted it and you Jana have agreed with it. That's >it, >no other comments or discussion by anyone and yet you presume to pass >the >proposal on, directing a state what it should do about a grievance as if > >the board has come to consensus or agreed upon this action. I do not >think >that a proposal by one and agreement by one other is sufficient grounds >to >do so particularly in light of your (Jana's) previously stated views >that >state actions are not addressable by this body. From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 18:12:57 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QF4gV2012510 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:04:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QF4eJT019842 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5QF3qM05360; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:03:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:03:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Jun 26 09:03:52 2002 Message-ID: <007b01c21d22$dea45380$ca967a3f@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:04:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Declude-Spoolname: Dd79d183001887671.SMD Subject: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1986 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: C+'!!W]?"!on0"!G@0!! Tim made a mistake in forwarding Isaiah's proposal and Tina's addition to the GA Committee. While I wouldn't be surprised if John Rigdon has also seen these proposals, I do not know for a fact that he has. John Ridgon has agreed to mediation. I have seen no specific reply from Tim in regard to mediation. I have seen the reply that as far as he is concerned the issue was D.O.A. and must assume this is his turning down mediation. My solution: The AB should continue discussing this situation....on Board-Exec-L. Since we do not know who else Teresa may have on her specially designed Board-Exec;, we should ignore any comments she might choose to make using it. Not only that, but we should be extremely careful to NEVER hit the reply button to post anything to it. PLUS, should she post a message using "her" form and there is no doubt of confidential information being placed on it, she should be delinked from Board-Exec-L pending the outcome of the discussion. An AB member (who is not running for office) should be assigned to forward any questions the AB may wish to ask John Rigdon and post his replies to Board-Exec-L. Questions could be asked directly of Tim. He may choose to take these questions to the GA Committee and then inform us of their reply. After the AB members are satisfied that they have what information is needed to make a decision, Tim should be delinked from Board-Exec-L pending the formation of a statement of the AB's opinion/suggestions for resolution of the issue. Phyllis From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 18:13:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QGSfV2020454 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QGSdJT000591 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:28:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5QGRqu22913; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:27:52 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:27:52 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Wed Jun 26 10:27:52 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:27:19 -0700 Message-ID: <000901c21d2e$578859d0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20020626073012.026d1ec0@pop.east.cox.net> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1990 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: )>0"!P:C!!'+;!!Ce;"! Holly, The key word here is "proposal." Jana -----Original Message----- From: Holly Timm [mailto:usgenweb@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:32 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia At 08:57 PM 6/25/02 -0700, Jana Black wrote: >You know Holly, anyone is free to *discuss* if they so choose, and >obviously several folks have come forward to do just that. If they do >not choose to discuss, then, that is OK as well. I see nothing >inappropriate in forwarding something that a number of AB members think >is one good, possible suggestion under the circumstances. I know better >than to represent it as an official AB action. At the point you stated you would be sending it, no other board members had stated anything about such a move, only yourself and the proposer. The proposal is not written as a suggestion. It specifically directs several actions for the state and its grievance committee to take. >No one is directing anyone to do anything - we are offering a >suggestion for a possible solution. The parties involved can take it, >leave it or shove it back at us. If another group of AB members decides >they have an alternative idea, I also see no reason for them not to >post it on EXEC and ask for support and then suggest it to the involved >parties. I think doing this is a huge sight better than appearing to do >nothing or not responding at all because we do not have complete >consensus. Offering options may just bring the situation closer to >resolution - at least we are trying to be responsive. > >And, for the record, show me where you think I said "state actions are >not addressable by this body." I said we have "no real clout" since we >can only "suggest," and at any time, any SC or whomever posted the >grievance can tell us to shove it and end mediation. I also said that >an entire truthful answer offering a variety of alternatives even if it >appears to conflict with itself is *much* better than this AB going >silent and never responding at all. That I think is entirely >irresponsible. > >Jana > >-----Original Message----- >From: Holly Timm [mailto:usgenweb@cox.net] >Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:29 PM >To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia > > > > >You better be extremely clear that this is your idea to forward this >Jana and that it is Richard's proposal... not a board action in any >way, manner, >or form. Richard has posted it and you Jana have agreed with it. That's >it, >no other comments or discussion by anyone and yet you presume to pass >the >proposal on, directing a state what it should do about a grievance as if > >the board has come to consensus or agreed upon this action. I do not >think that a proposal by one and agreement by one other is sufficient >grounds to >do so particularly in light of your (Jana's) previously stated views >that >state actions are not addressable by this body. From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 18:13:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QGYxV2021074 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:34:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QGYuJT001397 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:34:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5QGYBZ27416; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:34:11 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:34:11 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Wed Jun 26 10:34:11 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Observation Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:33:38 -0700 Message-ID: <000a01c21d2f$39a55480$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: <90D12689EF7A0543AB11426D75D6ABC51A95E1@oa4-server.oa.oclc.org> Resent-Message-ID: <3An0eB.A.KsG.D0eG9@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1991 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: Eap"!,\h"!JHh!!7I9!! Hi Robert, Thank you for bringing the issue to a forum where we can discuss it privately. I agree that Tim should not have access to EXEC while this conversation goes on. I will withhold further comment on the subject until I learn if he has been unsubbed for the duration. Perhaps if other AB members will express their opinions regarding unsubbung Mr. Stowell for the time being, by this evening when the NC is "back" we can have the conversation. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Bremer,Robert [mailto:bremerr@oclc.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:49 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Re: Observation Betsy, your comments strike me as absolutely ludicrous by dredging up the DBS which is completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Why should Tim have access to Board-Exec and all the messages related to Rigdon vs. GAGenWeb with the ability to discuss his side of the issue and counter arguments and opinions when the other party does not? How is that the least bit fair? If there is going to be a discussion of the resolution of Rigdon vs. GAGenWeb on this list, Tim should be unsubbed before any further discussion is permitted and the usual conclusion is reached. Robert Bremer bremerr@oclc.org -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:41 PM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Re: Observation I am sorry, this strikes me as absolutely ludicrous. You are worried about someone not having access to board discussion, while you post whatever you please to your personal trash list and NO ONE has access to that to dispute anything???? Give me a break! Betsy On 06:38 AM 6/25/2002 -0400, merope said: >It strikes me as more than a little unfair that one party to the >GAGenWeb >grievance has access to the forum on which it is being discussed while >the other party to the grievance does not have this access. Not only >that, but the party with access is sharing the suggestions put forth on >the secret list with non-Board members prior to the Board having discussed >them, voted on them, or even having determined that it is going to address >the grievance in the first place. > >-Teresa >merope@radix.net > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 18:13:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QGktV2022153 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:46:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QGksJT002855 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:46:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5QGk9I03254; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:46:09 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:46:09 -0600 X-Original-Sender: wchs@getgoin.net Wed Jun 26 10:46:09 2002 Message-ID: <001e01c21d31$29facae0$5228c141@wchs> From: "Phyllis Rippee" Old-To: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:47:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Declude-Spoolname: Def98ffa700a824af.SMD Subject: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1992 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: -LG"!* Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QHRRV2025796 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QHRQJT008023 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:27:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5QHQk515002; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:26:46 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:26:46 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Wed Jun 26 11:26:45 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:25:38 -0700 Message-ID: <001801c21d36$7d1fa2e0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: <001e01c21d31$29facae0$5228c141@wchs> Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1993 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: c`M!!"U]"!_W8"!^45"! I agree. Now that we have heard from Mr. Stowell as SC, we know that he does not agree to mediation and we can report back to Mr. Rigdon that there will be no mediation. My concern, however is that the AB *also* make an honest statement to our constituents regarding our conclusions as an AB the limitations upon the AB in such situations. It seems to me that what we came up with regarding North Carolina is still pertinent here. Therefore, I suggest the following statement: It is the position of the AB that grievances are a very serious matter that have negative effects on the involved states as well as upon the US GenWeb Project as a whole. The AB prefers that all parties determine to resolve the situation in the most amicable manner possible, and in an effort to do so, each party take a step back from their previously held positions. Breakdown in communications and a lack of cooperation are almost always significant contributors to such situations and all parties should resolve to make a stronger effort to communicate and cooperate in the future, especially in situations involving significant differences of opinion. However, the AB is limited in what it can recommend vs what it can effect. Currently, any SC has the power to do as s/he chooses regarding in-state issues and all CCS must accept this or fight it out at the state level per the Bylaws of the US GenWeb Project. Where mediation is not agreed to by both involved parties, the AB has determined according to the Bylaws, it has no standing whatsoever in the matter and can make no recommendation. Comments? Suggestions? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:wchs@getgoin.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:48 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA Quite frankly, I have no desire to waste my time discussing this issue. Tim has stated that the situation is closed and it will remain closed no matter how many comments are made about it. Now, if anyone wishes to discuss possible ways to avoid this happening in the future.....i.e. the SC's decision is final and the AB can go "flip"......I'd be mighty interested. Phyllis From ???@??? Tue Jun 25 19:01:58 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PL1EV2029513 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:01:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5PL1CJT024558 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:01:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5PL0GP18797; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:00:16 -0600 Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:00:16 -0600 X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Tue Jun 25 15:00:12 2002 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624210521.009ef1c0@imap.cs.com> X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:16:02 -0700 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Richard Harrison Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <005601c21bf1$37491580$a0263218@bur.adelphia.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020624193725.009faec0@imap.cs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Apparently-From: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1965 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ,1g"!VVJ!!'Xg"!+<8!! At 10:37 PM 6/24/2002 -0400, you wrote: >And may I add, that all parties, for the sole purpose of political posturing >for the upcoming USGenWeb Project curtail airing this grievance in public >forums associated with USGenWeb. > >Tina Good Point! Additionally, because John Rigdon and Richard Pettys are also candidates for NC in the election, I can't be publicly associated with any negotiations involved in this grievance. -Isaiah Richard Harrison Candidate for USGW National Coordinator :: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~richard/nc/index.htm Visit The Art Department :: http://ourworld.cs.com/EncinitasArt/index.htm From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 06:07:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q2FbV2023407 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:15:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5Q2FaJT002016 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:15:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from JANA ([12.236.164.242]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020626021535.KTRZ9178.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@JANA>; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:15:35 +0000 From: "Jana Black" To: "'Betsy Mills'" , "'merope'" Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: Observation Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:15:10 -0700 Message-ID: <011a01c21cb7$4ccde4f0$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020625204452.02afca70@mail.1starnet.com> X-UIDL: KD:"!8l,!!cEo!!fWh!! The same goes for me, including an apology to the rest of the AB. If you think this is an important issue, Teresa, demonstrate the courage to bring it to the right place to discuss it. Perhaps your constituents would be interested to know how you deceitfully pretend not to use EXEC but attempt to endrun it bait the AB to get your opinion in still. Note; no one is addressing your issue. Jana -----Original Message----- From: Betsy Mills [mailto:betsym@1starnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:06 PM To: merope Cc: usgenweb@cox.net; tngibson@att.net; pamreid@comcast.net; gingerh@shawneelink.com; bremerr@oclc.org; TVick65536@aol.com; nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com; ArtDept@compuserve.com; kheidel@tri.net; tstowell@chattanooga.net; ky.quest@gte.net; wchs@getgoin.net; janab@websweweave.net; rkeason@tir.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Observation Take me off your secret cc: list. You can post your message on board-exec list like an adult. Your using a secret cc: list instead of board-exec is childish and ridiculous and misleading to your doting public, and I don't want to be part of it. If you send me another message like this I WILL forward it to every list I am on with a note that "Teresa obviously doesn't know the correct address for the board-exec list." My apologies to Madame NC for replying to Teresa's message on Board-Exec and therefore enabling her. Betsy On 07:09 PM 6/25/2002 -0400, merope said: >>X-Sender: usgenweb@pop.east.cox.net >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 >>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 07:34:37 -0400 >>To: merope >>From: Holly Timm >>Subject: Re: Observation >>X-Status: >>X-Keywords: >> >> >>If you wish your message to appear on Board-Exec, send it correctly to >>Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com --- as to unfairness, Mr Rigdon is being ably >>defended by Ron Eason and Tim Stowell is on the verge if not over the >>edge of being removed from the list for forwarding mail from it. > >If I had wished it to go to the secret list I would have sent it there. > >I find it very instructive that John must be "ably defended" by someone >who cannot even discuss the deliberations with him, while Tim is free to >actively participate in any discussion we may have. > >-Teresa > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 18:13:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QFJ0V2013870 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:19:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QFIxJT021717 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:19:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5QFIGs17978; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:18:16 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:18:16 -0600 X-Original-Sender: betsym@1starnet.com Wed Jun 26 09:18:16 2002 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:17:57 -0500 Message-Id: <200206261017.AA1000276282@1starnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Betsy Mills" Reply-To: Old-To: Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] OFF TOPIC X-Mailer: Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1988 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: P?L"!XG;!!#mC"!UY~!! My apologies, Robert. I believe I have already apologized to the NC for forwarding the nonsense to the list and she has accepted that apology. My statement had NOTHING to do with the issue at hand and should have been labelled "Off Topic." I couldn't agree more that Tim should be unsubbed from board-exec while this discussion is going on -- as should anyone else who is directly involved in the matter. Betsy ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Bremer,Robert" Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:49:28 -0400 >Betsy, your comments strike me as absolutely ludicrous by dredging up the >DBS which is completely unrelated to the issue at hand. > >Why should Tim have access to Board-Exec and all the messages related to >Rigdon vs. GAGenWeb with the ability to discuss his side of the issue and >counter arguments and opinions when the other party does not? How is that >the least bit fair? > >If there is going to be a discussion of the resolution of Rigdon vs. >GAGenWeb on this list, Tim should be unsubbed before any further discussion >is permitted and the usual conclusion is reached. > >Robert Bremer >bremerr@oclc.org > From ???@??? Wed Jun 26 18:13:10 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QFsOV2017024 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:54:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5QFsMJT026219 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g5QFrev06805; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:53:40 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:53:40 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Wed Jun 26 09:53:39 2002 Message-ID: <27784.66.129.5.5.1025106815.squirrel@control.chattanooga.net> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA From: "Tim Stowell" Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com In-Reply-To: <007b01c21d22$dea45380$ca967a3f@wchs> References: <007b01c21d22$dea45380$ca967a3f@wchs> Reply-To: tstowell@chattanooga.net X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.0.6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1989 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: +$Z"!HfB!![f*!!n9)#! > John Ridgon has agreed to mediation. I have seen no specific reply > from Tim in regard to mediation. I have seen the reply that as far as > he is concerned the issue was D.O.A. and must assume this is his > turning down mediation. > > My solution: The AB should continue discussing this situation....on > Board-Exec-L. Since we do not know who else Teresa may have on her > specially designed Board-Exec;, we should ignore any comments she might > choose to make using it. Not only that, but we should be extremely > careful to NEVER hit the reply button to post anything to it. PLUS, > should she post a message using "her" form and there is no doubt of > confidential information being placed on it, she should be delinked > from Board-Exec-L pending the outcome of the discussion. > > An AB member (who is not running for office) should be assigned to > forward any questions the AB may wish to ask John Rigdon and post his > replies to Board-Exec-L. > > Questions could be asked directly of Tim. He may choose to take these > questions to the GA Committee and then inform us of their reply. > > After the AB members are satisfied that they have what information is > needed to make a decision, Tim should be delinked from Board-Exec-L > pending the formation of a statement of the AB's opinion/suggestions > for resolution of the issue. > > Phyllis His site was 95% commercial, in violation of national Bylaws. He's been given all the time since the Bylaws passage to fix his site, despite several appeals to do so, and has refused to do so. He was removed under the similiar circumstances that another CC had previously been removed. This other CC was selling items, begging for money to fix her house, buy a microfilm machine and so forth and after a great deal of leeway was removed for doing things not in line with our mission of providing data freely. The only real difference in her case and his is that he and I had history together. He introduced me to the Project back in 1996. It has saddened me greatly to have to do this but it was his choice to fleece users at the expense of the Project's name and reputation. One lady's note I saw complained about his service and he told her when she complained to please get the name of his business correct for he could use the business. As far as Georgia is concerned this issue is dead. This is the reply of the Georgia Council. Mr. Rigdon has been replaced. So you can discuss it till kingdom come and it won't change our position. I seriously doubt the other SCs will agree to the proposition that the AB will now go about the business of telling SCs who they must have as CCs within their projects. ------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- Tim Stowell tstowell@chattanooga.net From ???@??? Fri Jun 28 06:33:24 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5S6LSV2010048 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com ([207.40.200.39]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5S6LRJT028556 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) id g5S6K1LW015486; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:20:01 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:20:01 -0600 X-Original-Sender: rkeason@directvinternet.com Fri Jun 28 00:20:01 2002 X-Sent: 28 Jun 2002 02:20:11 GMT Message-ID: <01e101c21e49$beef60c0$dd11bd41@hppav> From: "Ron Eason" Old-To: References: <007b01c21d22$dea45380$ca967a3f@wchs> <27784.66.129.5.5.1025106815.squirrel@control.chattanooga.net> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:15:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1994 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: ,-'#!Z:B!!!i;!!NRV"! And at these great words, we may as well just do as some others have suggested and just dissolve this Board and just have a system of "For the states, by the states, of the states and quit wasting our time trying to pretend to do good, because no matter what anyone thinks, if the SC's don't like it, then the rest of the Project be damned! Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA > > > John Ridgon has agreed to mediation. I have seen no specific reply > > from Tim in regard to mediation. I have seen the reply that as far as > > he is concerned the issue was D.O.A. and must assume this is his > > turning down mediation. > > > > My solution: The AB should continue discussing this situation....on > > Board-Exec-L. Since we do not know who else Teresa may have on her > > specially designed Board-Exec;, we should ignore any comments she might > > choose to make using it. Not only that, but we should be extremely > > careful to NEVER hit the reply button to post anything to it. PLUS, > > should she post a message using "her" form and there is no doubt of > > confidential information being placed on it, she should be delinked > > from Board-Exec-L pending the outcome of the discussion. > > > > An AB member (who is not running for office) should be assigned to > > forward any questions the AB may wish to ask John Rigdon and post his > > replies to Board-Exec-L. > > > > Questions could be asked directly of Tim. He may choose to take these > > questions to the GA Committee and then inform us of their reply. > > > > After the AB members are satisfied that they have what information is > > needed to make a decision, Tim should be delinked from Board-Exec-L > > pending the formation of a statement of the AB's opinion/suggestions > > for resolution of the issue. > > > > Phyllis > > His site was 95% commercial, in violation of national Bylaws. He's been > given all the time since the Bylaws passage to fix his site, despite > several appeals to do so, and has refused to do so. He was removed under > the similiar circumstances that another CC had previously been removed. > This other CC was selling items, begging for money to fix her house, buy a > microfilm machine and so forth and after a great deal of leeway was removed > for doing things not in line with our mission of providing data freely. > > The only real difference in her case and his is that he and I had history > together. He introduced me to the Project back in 1996. It has saddened > me greatly to have to do this but it was his choice to fleece users at the > expense of the Project's name and reputation. > > One lady's note I saw complained about his service and he told her when she > complained to please get the name of his business correct for he could use > the business. > > As far as Georgia is concerned this issue is dead. This is the reply of > the Georgia Council. Mr. Rigdon has been replaced. So you can discuss it > till kingdom come and it won't change our position. > > I seriously doubt the other SCs will agree to the proposition that the AB > will now go about the business of telling SCs who they must have as CCs > within their projects. > > ------------------------------------------------------via webmail---- > Tim Stowell > tstowell@chattanooga.net > > > > From ???@??? Fri Jun 28 06:33:32 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5S7Y8V2014198 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com ([207.40.200.39]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5S7Y7JT005244 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:34:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) id g5S7WV60010333; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:32:31 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 01:32:31 -0600 X-Original-Sender: janab@websweweave.net Fri Jun 28 01:32:29 2002 From: "Jana Black" Old-To: Subject: FW: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:15:07 -0700 Message-ID: <00a901c21e49$9f296010$f2a4ec0c@JANA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1995 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: "@S!!2GL!!X8&"!M"~"! This did not post apparently due to the server maintenance.... One more try.... Jana -----Original Message----- From: Jana Black [mailto:janab@websweweave.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:26 AM To: 'Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com' Subject: RE: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA I agree. Now that we have heard from Mr. Stowell as SC, we know that he does not agree to mediation and we can report back to Mr. Rigdon that there will be no mediation. My concern, however is that the AB *also* make an honest statement to our constituents regarding our conclusions as an AB the limitations upon the AB in such situations. It seems to me that what we came up with regarding North Carolina is still pertinent here. Therefore, I suggest the following statement: It is the position of the AB that grievances are a very serious matter that have negative effects on the involved states as well as upon the US GenWeb Project as a whole. The AB prefers that all parties determine to resolve the situation in the most amicable manner possible, and in an effort to do so, each party take a step back from their previously held positions. Breakdown in communications and a lack of cooperation are almost always significant contributors to such situations and all parties should resolve to make a stronger effort to communicate and cooperate in the future, especially in situations involving significant differences of opinion. However, the AB is limited in what it can recommend vs what it can effect. Currently, any SC has the power to do as s/he chooses regarding in-state issues and all CCS must accept this or fight it out at the state level per the Bylaws of the US GenWeb Project. Where mediation is not agreed to by both involved parties, the AB has determined according to the Bylaws, it has no standing whatsoever in the matter and can make no recommendation. Comments? Suggestions? Jana -----Original Message----- From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:wchs@getgoin.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:48 AM To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA Quite frankly, I have no desire to waste my time discussing this issue. Tim has stated that the situation is closed and it will remain closed no matter how many comments are made about it. Now, if anyone wishes to discuss possible ways to avoid this happening in the future.....i.e. the SC's decision is final and the AB can go "flip"......I'd be mighty interested. Phyllis From ???@??? Fri Jun 28 06:33:32 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5S8QUV2017490 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com ([207.40.200.39]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5S8QTJT010330 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:26:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) id g5S8OSRF015333; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:24:28 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:24:28 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Fri Jun 28 02:24:23 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020627023154.014f3860@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:31:54 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625172353.00aa0cb0@pop.east.cox.net> References: <45176.66.129.5.5.1025021003.squirrel@control.chattanooga.n et> <5.1.0.14.2.20020625070309.028e5e20@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20020625070309.028e5e20@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1997 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: JQM!!ld_"!i$#"!YLK!! At 05:27 PM 6/25/02 -0400, you wrote: >At 12:03 PM 6/25/02 -0400, Tim Stowell wrote: > >>If the NC wishes to unsub me from this list then will the NC also be >>unsubbing Mr. Eason or Ms. Lindquist? I rather doubt it. > >and your instances of them having forwarded messages from the Exec list? From: "Ron Eason" Old-Cc: , , , , , , , "Virginia Crilley" Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:47:11 -0400 Subject: [Board-Exec] GA. Guidelines To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com *** This post has been CC'd to John as well as the GAGEN Council*** Please do not reply to ALL, so as to not include them in your reply, I CC'd them, because I think they have a right to know certain information coming from me, as a CC Rep. for them and their Region. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Ms. Lindquist - reporting about what goes on here in her rag, as Betsy calls it. Even if only reporting who posted when. That said, I felt, wrongly, not thinking clearly in the middle of the night that my post to the GA Council was no more than what Ron had done above - and I'm not throwing rocks at Ron for having done so. I have already previously apologized to Isaiah and I now do so publically to Tina. It was a misjudgment on my part, as I was trying to expedite the process and I'm sorry that I took that route. Since Georgia is run by a council system versus SC/ASC, decisions that effect all of GAGenWeb are talked about until a consensus is reached before any action takes place. >>The NC as NY SC also removed the Abbys in a very short period of time one >>weekend a couple of years back for having commercial site. I used that as >>part of our basis in removing John. > >The Abbys had been requested to comply for some time and were removed when >the sites vanished and were replaced by a page touting another organization >(and even then they were given time to change that) not for anything >commercial. Tim From ???@??? Fri Jun 28 06:33:32 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5S9lFV2021395 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 05:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com ([207.40.200.39]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5S9lEJT017539 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 05:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) id g5S9jha7000620; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:45:43 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:45:43 -0600 X-Original-Sender: kheidel@tri.net Fri Jun 28 03:45:41 2002 Message-ID: <009d01c21d3c$95e2b0a0$88f499cd@sasnak.net> From: "Kathy Heidel" Old-To: References: <001e01c21d31$29facae0$5228c141@wchs> Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:09:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Resent-Message-ID: To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1998 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: j5\!!Q7o!!LLB!!_:$#! I believe this is the way the AB went as far as North Carolina, isn't it. We couldn't help Terria or Kelly because Sharon wouldn't mediate? Well what is so different now, is it because it is Tim and John and Ron? I believe so. So until Tim decides to desire mediation we, the AB can only standby and watch as we did previously. Same song and dance just different actors. Kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phyllis Rippee" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:47 AM Subject: [Board-Exec] Rigdon v. GA > Quite frankly, I have no desire to waste my time discussing this issue. Tim > has stated that the situation is closed and it will remain closed no matter > how many comments are made about it. > > Now, if anyone wishes to discuss possible ways to avoid this happening in > the future.....i.e. the SC's decision is final and the AB can go > "flip"......I'd be mighty interested. > > Phyllis > > From ???@??? Fri Jun 28 06:33:32 2002 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by saltmine.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5S8SgV2017646 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com ([207.40.200.39]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5S8SfJT010564 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) id g5S8OSOP015377; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:24:30 -0600 Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:24:30 -0600 X-Original-Sender: tstowell@chattanooga.net Fri Jun 28 02:24:22 2002 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20020627021622.014f3820@mail.chattanooga.net> X-Sender: tstowell@mail.chattanooga.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 02:16:22 -0400 Old-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com From: Tim Stowell Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Rigdon vs. Georgia In-Reply-To: <004601c21cc9$e984e480$66c93718@agstme.adelphia.net> References: <012c01c21cc3$6abd3360$f2a4ec0c@JANA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: <41x4bC.A.LrD.60BH9@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Reply-To: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1996 X-Loop: Board-Exec-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: Board-Exec-L-request@rootsweb.com X-UIDL: _:$#!Sl@"!m5J"!gSk!! At 12:26 AM 6/26/02 -0400, Tina wrote: >Tim, you never cease to amaze me, with your who me, well everyone else does >it mindset. Everyone else doing it, doesn't make it right. And you still >haven't answered Holly's question of earlier today. And my very own >personal opinion is since you are involved in this grievance, even more care >and thought should have been exhibited. It's not that everyone else is doing it. In the case of Abby in NY it was the swiftness with which she was set adrift that was the complaint that Ms. Abby brought forth on -all. As I said before, Mr. Ridgon had 2 or more years to comply. He knows what the Bylaws say yet refuses to abide by them. If you wish, I can provide you with notes from him to let you see just what he thinks of the Bylaws. Now I don't know about you but if we are going to have Bylaws shouldn't folks be made accountable to them, especially the parts that are not up for interpretation? I don't understand you point in your last sentence above, so would you explain it? So, let me ask it this way - if the complaint had been against you by someone in Wisconsin, what would you do, with the same set of circumstances? Tim