Re: MCM - Digest V1 #181

["Dorothy Reimer" <dreimer@wwdc.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: MCM - Digest <owner-aga-mcm-digest@thekrib.com>
To: aga-mcm-digest@thekrib.com <aga-mcm-digest@thekrib.com>
Date: Friday, November 19, 1999 7:13 AM
Subject: MCM - Digest V1 #181


>
>MCM - Digest         Friday, November 19 1999         Volume 01 : Number
181
>
>
>
>In this issue:
>
>   PAM revote
>   Re: PAM revote
>
>To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org with
>"unsubscribe aga-mcm" in the body.
>
>Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-mcm
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:34:32 -0500
>From: krandall@world.std.com
>Subject: PAM revote
>
>Bob wrote:
>
>> All three addressees, please do what you can to get the rest of the MC
>>to revote and revote now.
>
>Hey folks, I think Bob is unclear on where people stand on the AMMENDED PAM
>issue. (whether we should continue to NEGOTIATE on PAM... not whether we
>will accept any specific deal at this time)  I think several of you have
>already voted, but to make it clearer again, please respond to this post
>directly, and on ONLY this one issue.
>
>Thank you.
>
>You know Bob, whether I like the idea of PAM or not (and I do) I think this
>issue is tearing AGA apart.  I think it may be time to recognise that we
>just can't do this.  Not because of any fault of Dave's, or because of any
>fault of PAM or Dave's plans for PAM, (which BTW, are coming along very
>well) but because _WE_ are not organized enough to make it happen.  I was
>in favor of our involvement in PAM.  I am _still_ in favor of the concept
>of PAM, with or without AGA involvement..  I think it could work _IF_
>everyone was behind it.  But they are not.  This is _not_ working.
>
>Sleepy little organization or not, poorly organized or not, at least
>everyone in AGA was having a good time and enjoying each other's company
>before.  This is about as much fun as having fingernails pulled out one at
>a time.
>
>Karen
>
>------------------------------
>
I vote NO. I don't think we should carry on with PAM at this time. We should
get our organizational structure in hand. Give Mary a chance (with Neil's
help) to produce TAG which is a good outlet for us now. I think PAM could
come in due time but sight unseen bothers me.
We have enjoyed working with each other and I hope we never lose the
friendship we have had over the years.

Dorothy