| 1 |
Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm, for one, unclear on how it's deceptive. And how is he being a |
| 3 |
> lawyer about it? To me, it looks like he brought up a good point: we |
| 4 |
> don't officially *have* by-laws yet -- we can't until they're ratified |
| 5 |
> by vote. I don't know that evil intent should be ascribed to Joshua's |
| 6 |
> email, but that's just me. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
No, I didn't say evil. But it's so trivial to make an argument that it |
| 9 |
goes against the spirit of how things should work that I won't even |
| 10 |
bother. When one applies to be a member explicitly against proposed but |
| 11 |
as-yet unratified bylaws, how can you argue anything else? It's like |
| 12 |
slipping into a tax shelter just before the IRS makes it illegal. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Thanks, |
| 15 |
Donnie |
Archives