Re: NAR Speculations (was Re: action: stirring the pot)

Ismaeel,   This is really a low blow, and an exhibition of childish
behavior on your part.  You've earlier expounded to the fact that you
have credentials of various types and tried to come across as "a
leader" of sorts, urging us to follow your lead and examine the
failures of TRA and embrace the philosophy of ASRA.  I've been
following these 'action' threads with curiosity.  While I don't whole
heartedly agree with the sum total of either side (there's only two
sides to all of the action threads) I have gleaned two things.

1. You have sidestepped the direct questions about how ARSA functions.
 And it's really strange because you have proclaimed yourself to be
their "communications facilitator".  Oh sure, you've alluded to how it
works, but WE REALLY WANT TO KNOW, AND YOU'RE NOT COMING OUT AND
HONESTLY TELLING US!  How in the world can the communications
facilitator of a group be so slippery as to the workings of the
organization, and expect any credibility at all?!

2. As you've been pinned down by some of the other's here, your
debating skills begin to lack and you crawfish around, scooting away
from the real gist of the argument, or just quit and call the poster
names.  Very immature.

But this posting of Mark's addy for no good reason at all takes the
cake for me.  I won't debate with you, EVER.  You're up to no good; I
don't trust you at all.  If Mr. Wickman has any sense at all, and is
on the up and up, he'll distance himself from you soon.

Steve

PS  I just re-read what you wrote to Mark.  You really come across in
a condescending way with smart aleky overtones.  Is this what we can
expect from the rest of the bunch at ASRA?  No thanks, I'll stick with
the status quo for now.

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Mark B. Bundick honored be by replying to my post with:
> 
> > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:20:09 GMT, Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> >>I recall a thread a few months back where we posed that question to 
> >>Bunnie.  I don't recall his response (if any). 
> > 
> > Please spell the name right. BTW, I recall no such thread.
> 
> Bunny?  You actually read every single message in every single thread?! 
>   I'm truly impressed
> 
> >>If I were to try to speculate what objections they might have
> > 
> > You could also just ask, instead of speculating.
> 
> I forgot what we were talking about.  Could you remind me?  (its a 
> consequence of inadequately quoting that which you are responding to)
> 
> >>I don't hear that much dissatisfaction about NAR (other than 
> >>legal/legislative performance or support issues)
> > 
> > I have repeatedly stated in this and other forums that I hear no such
> > dissatistfaction.  Persons wishing to express such dissatisfaction can
> > reach me at either:
> > 
> >     president of the narborg
> > or
> >     mbundick from earthlink tennis net
> 
> yes, thats what I said
> 
> > but the lack of even the most
> > rudementary understanding of how non profit organizations can and
> > should be managed (at least according to best practices recognized by
> > many leading non profits) and the lack of any background research into
> > the topic before posting here is nothing short of astounding.  
> 
> gee, I thought it was reasonable to expect non proit organizations to be 
> managed honestly, in part by refraining from fraud and embezzlement
> 
> (I'm not talking about NAR, Bunny)
> 
> > If we built rockets with the same level of rigor with as the
> > discussions of non profit organizations and their management here do,
> > nothing would get off the pad.
> 
> apparently the rigor with which some organizations are run is 
> insufficient to enable it to faithfully represent the interests of its 
> members
> 
> (I'm not talking about NAR, Bunny)
> 
> so, did you want to respond substantively to the original thread?
> 
> should TRA and NAR become (or be superseded by) a single organization
> state your opinion with reasons
> 
> but please try to offer more substance than you did to my request for 
> John Kyte's measurable results
> 
> - iz