[Linux-aus] Linux Australia AGM Held (fwd)
bret at busby.net
Tue Feb 4 10:39:02 UTC 2003
The following is a heap of crap. It reminds me of the journalism
principle; "why let the truth get in the way of a good story?". If you
are going to continue the misrepresentation of what happened, then that
is your problem. It will also reflect on the organisation . Try reading
all the previous postings from everyone, from my original posting, which
was, I believe, the second in the thread, thence getting your
facts right, before writing such crap.
As I have previously said, if this continues, you might as well just
bury the organisation now.
Oh, and, yes, any further such messages will be replied to, on-list, as
long as this crap continues.
"So once you do know what the question actually is,
you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
Chapter 28 of
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
A Trilogy In Four Parts",
written by Douglas Adams,
published by Pan Books, 1992
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 04 Feb 2003 01:30:21 +0800
From: Tim Bowden <bowden at iinet.net.au>
To: Bret Busby <bret at busby.net>
Subject: Re: [Linux-aus] Linux Australia AGM Held
On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 17:53, Bret Busby wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Matt Hope wrote:
<snip matt's attempt to keep this sane>
> I will put this simply.
> I raised a number of the following points, with a list member who was
> sufficiently rational, to discuss this with me off list, in a rational
> I made, on the list, some constructive suggestions about an organization
> named (rightly or otherwise) Linux Australia.
> The suggestions were met with hostile objection by, amongst others,
> Anand Kumria, who showed that he speaks for the organisation. His
> actions showed that the organisation, under his control, was, and will
> be, a sinister and malicious organisation that will go to dishonourable
> lengths, to protect the self-interest of the committee members, and that
> the committee shall not be representative of Linux users, and others
> associated with Linux, in Australia, but instead that the committe will
> thumb its nose at these people.
Perhaps(?) some of the responses to your initial suggestions were a bit
blunt, but they were not hostile. In summary they just didn't think
your idea about regional representation was a good one. They are
entitled to their opinion, just as you are. Get used to it. Just
because they are/were holding office in LA doesn't make it a conspiracy.
> In what followed, I am reminded of the policy of the committee member
> from WA, who, over a number of years, has shown that he launches
> gratuitous personal attacks, involving gratuitous personal defamation,
> on unsuspecting and innocent victims.
If you're going to make sweeping statements like this, you should
provide evidence (preferably as a link- threads like this already burn
up far too much bandwidth) or people will start to dismiss everything
you say for lack of backing facts, even when you are right. Might not
be fair, but it's a fact of human nature. If it's too hard to collate
the evidence, refrain from making the accusation, even if Leon is man
enough to take it in his stride. It does you no credit.
> Both he and Anand Kumria appear to have developed the policy of the
> organisation, along these lines.
> I had previously understood that the organisation has a president, who
> is not either of these people.
> We have a number of people, apparently speaking in the name of the
> organisation, except the one who is supposed to count.
> It is general practice (usually written into an organisation's
> constitution), that the sole spokesperson of an organisation, is the
> president or chairman of the organisation.
Have you read the constitution? Does it prohibit the representation of
LA by all members bar the president? It is my experience that most
organizations consider all members to be it's representatives. General
practice (whatever that may be) does not invalidate the representation
of the organisation by non president office holders.
> That person is conspicuously absent from all of this.
> There have been strong opinions expressed on both sides, with much
> ill-will from both sides.
Most of the ill will and inflammatory remarks seem to be one sided.
Most of those that have disagreed with you have actually tried to hose
cold water on the situation, despite some of the vilification they have
> I suggest that, in the interests of the Linux community in Australia,
> which, from what has been written, is what the organisation IS SUPPOSED
> TO represent, all of this cease until the supposed president surfaces,
> and discusses all of this with the parties concerned, off list.
> That is, if there really is a president of the organisation, that is not
> Anand Kumria.
No such claim has been made. As a member of LA, he is just as entitled
to put his opinion as any other member.
> Unless, you all want to bury the organisation.
> Bret Busby
> West Australia
<trim unreasonably long .sig>
As a general note, it would be much easier to follow your line of
argument if you made a clearer distinction between facts and (sometimes
More information about the linux-aus