Re: [Linux-aus] Linux Australia AGM Held

[Leon Brooks <leon@cyberknights.com.au>]

On Monday 03 February 2003 05:53 pm, Bret Busby wrote:
> 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.

Are you sure you're wearing your tinfoil hat right? Properly grounded and all? 
Pardon my incredulous response, but you're discussing a bloke who has helped 
LA raise an enormous amount of money, stood in when others couldn't be 
bothered, opened out the membership from 5 to roughly 400, and who _gave_up_ 
the office of President. That's one _weird_ definition of `sinister and 
malicious'.

> 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.

Not gratuitous attacks, well-earned attacks. And doesn't defemation have to be 
_false_ representation?

> Both he and Anand Kumria appear to have developed the policy of the
> organisation, along these lines.

Pretty good trick, since I had zero involvement before the AGM.

> I had previously understood that the organisation has a president, who
> is not either of these people.

> We have a number of people,

Two. No, wait, I'm not supposed to be the one that counts...

> apparently speaking in the name of the organisation,

Make my day, quote me.

> except the one who is supposed to count.

And what will you say when Pia says the same things? Sinister influences? 
Conspiracy? Hypnotism?

> 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.

> That person is conspicuously absent from all of this.

Last I checked, that person was conspicuously damn busy. And tries not to get 
involved in bunfights.

> That is, if there really is a president of the organisation, that is not
> Anand Kumria.

Well, he was _past_ President. If anyone knew what LA's official position has 
been to date, Anand would be the one.

> Unless, you all want to bury the organisation.

Thank you, Mr Kruschev. You may go. (-:

I'm wondering by what authority you demand a statement from President Smith.

Leon

-- 
http://cyberknights.com.au/     Modern tools; traditional dedication
http://plug.linux.org.au/       Member, Perth Linux User Group
http://slpwa.asn.au/            Committee Member, Linux Professionals WA
http://linux.org.au/            Committee Member, Linux Australia
http://linux.org.au/~leonb/lca2003/  THE Oz Linux Technical Conf:
                                excellent event, photos here!