oct 2 report to members

to brian glick and frank reid and others.

There are two possible reasons that I can see for your fixation on the signature to posts.
1. you are trying to divert the discussion from its essence and to make the poster(me) the issue. A tried and proven Washington political tactic that does not work.
2, you are truly ignorant of the tradition of anomoninity that exists in the UNITED STATES.

I can do nothing if you fall into the first camp, but can offer a reasoned discussion of the tradition that exists within the United States that encourages and protects free and anonymous speech. read on if you choose to be enlightened. if your motive is to divert, hit delete now.

Within our country ( USA) there has evolved a tradition, that is protected, which encourages anonymous information to be disseminated. Whether you be a FOX watcher or a NY TIMES reader, your news is often derived from UNNAMED HIGH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, or unnamed elected officials, or unnamed government functionaries who speak on condition of remaining unnamed. It is the reporters job to verify the accuracy of the information, not to reveal the name.
Bob Woodward brought down the Nixon administration with the information supplied by DEEP THROAT. History is replete with many many instances of unnamed sources blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing.
WHILE I do NOT condone the leaking of legitimately classified national security information, as this is a criminal offense, the anonymous leaking of information is a widely practiced art of national and local politics. Overclassification ( read adjourning to administrative session)) is also a practiced art of a government that is seeking to hide information from the public. Likewise of a board that is seeking to control a situation.

Bush hates unauthorized leaks, but makes liberal use of deep background discussions between high officials ( such as dick cheney) to get a message out . no names are attached.. does that make the information invalid?

The US Senate has a rule which permits a Senator to place an ANONYMOUS HOLD on a bill or appointment. Nothing will happen until the hold is removed and the senator's name is not made public. This is an old tradition and has a real basis in logic.
I could go on and on, but the point is that the IDEAS and opinions are what should be subject to debate. Adding a name is basically irrelevant unless one wants to enhance an argument by evoking an association to a specific name.

There are MANY reasons that a poster to this board might nor want to sign his name.
1. He may be a sitting judge.
2. he may be a local or national politician with an interest in soaring who does not want this issue to be introduced by his political opponents.
3. He may be a political staffer or appointee who , by way of his position, may have some distant possible conflict should his principal be called upon to enact legislation revelant to the SSA.
4. He may be an ssa member who works for the IRS, the NM tax people or the NM ag.. who wants to send an unofficial message to the membership of the ssa that the **** is about to hit the fan.
5. he may be a pilot who is seeking a berth on the national team who does not want to risk offending the powers that be.
6. He may have a commercial interest in soaring and does not want to risk his business base, but has personal feelings.
7. He may be a director of the ssa who is seeking to go against the flow and to affect change, but is running into the establishment.
8. he may just be a member who is genuinely ****ed off at the way things have gone and who has reached the point of speaking out and "tipping at windmills" a la Don Quixote.

NONE of these ( and many more) reasons add or subtract one little bit from the IDEAS, and OPINIONS presented by someone who exercises his right to remain anonymous. You retain the right to hit the delete button. it is a free country.

BUT be clear, seeking to divert the discussion does absolutely NOTHING towards resolving the problem or to clear the tracks of the train wreck that is in progress. Your obsession with who I am and not with my thoughts, opinions and cited facts is a clear indication that you seek to protect the establishment by diverting the conversation.
If you have learned anything from recent current events it should be that the facts and ideas that are presented anonymously follow a separate track from the discussion of who divulged the information. In the long run, it matters little who blows the whistle on government abuse of authority, it is the national discussion of the abuse that matters. The national discussion of NSA eavesdropping, of CIA secret prisons, Of homeland security regulations, of giving up individual rights towards the goal of counterterrorism of many other issues will be resolved at the polls very soon. unnamed leakers and off the record opinions play a big roll in the outcome. Both parties seek political advantage and use unnamed sources.

we are discussing abuse. it does not matter who I am. it is the discussion of a tradition of abuse that has evolved within the ssa among the INSIDERS that is in question. It is the discussion of how to change the organization to make it more relevant to the general membership that matters.
You mention that the chair and her husband have worked tirelessly to raise funds for the national team. That is a nice project. it is, however not relevant to my interests. Was her devotion to this task such that other projects were shortchanged? was I asked as a member if I approved of this project? It is my clear view that the "insiders who run the show" are committed to a set of values which may be diverging from that of the general membership.

So challenge my facts, disagree with my opinions, but park the bull**** attacks on me for not signing my name. As I said, that is either a transparent diversionary tactic, or ignorance.

a concerned ssa member.






"Brian Glick" wrote in message ink.net...
So that my friends among soaring, who know that I can be very outspoken at
times, do not think that 5-BG is me. I will tell you that, I sign all my
posts, and I am not one to go off half cocked and not list my name. If I say
it, I will say it to your face.

With that said, I also do not agree with a full house cleaning of the SSA
EXComm. They decided to do this by themselves, so I guess that we will all
have to live with it. BUT, anyone who knows these people know that they were
duped bigtime while trying to do a thankless job. I have watched over the
years as Diane and her husband have worked tirelessly to raise funds for the
world team, and to better soaring as a whole. To take blanket shots at her
now is just without education, or common respect enough to get to know her
and the rest of the EXCOMM for that matter. I REPEAT what I said earlier.
Tone it down, and let them do their jobs. Every single one of you that has
been so short and quick to critisize, had better have their names on for
director the next election. Otherwise, I second what Frank Reid said, in
just as strong of language, and I will not be afraid to say that to your
face!!!! Shame on all of you!!!!!

Brian Glick
Mifflin, PA

"Frank Reid" wrote in message
oups.com...

Everyone and everything in the SSA should, according to you, be open
and transparent, yet you hide behind your nickname of 5-BG. You have
been asked several times to speak up and tell us who you are. That is
the one area of conversation that you avoid. Seems to be a double
standard here, don't you think? Are you scared to let us know who you
are? Are you ashamed of who you are? What the hell is with you?
Identify yourself or shut the F#*# up!!

Come on chicken speak up or shut up!

Warmest Regards,

Frank Reid