Hi Gary, First, let me thank you for sending this to us privately rather than continuing to fan the flames on one of the public lists. We are currently checking with an attorney to see what we can and cannot safely say and do in this situation. I am sure I am not the only one of the MC/SC members who is seething over this law suit. I have publicly made my personal position known, and have been quite heavily involved in the debate with Novak's idiot employee(s) on the Fishnet forum. However, as strongly as I feel about this, and as much as I support the defendants in this case (especially Cynthia) I had to respect the decision of the rest of the SC when the decision was made that we couldn't afford to stick our necks out on this one. There is no question that Novak is wrong. And there is no question that in the end, the defendants will prevail. As individuals, we have the opportunity to stand up and help them, and even take our chances arguing with the PSW hoodlums on line. BUT if our actions caused AGA to be named in the suit, it could, no, probably would be the end of the organization just because of the financial blow. We would not be acting in the best interests of our members if we allowed one very misguided person to destroy the AGA. And unfortunately, Novak can be completely wrong, could resoundingly lose this suit, and still bring financial ruin to the AGA in the process. I know that you've stuck your neck out personally for the defense fund, and I am very proud of how many of my friends have. But would you endanger the RSG and the funds of its membership? It's one thing to take a risk personally. It's quite another to take a risk, even a small one, with someone else's money. Karen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Lange" <gwlange@mindspring.com> To: "Jack O'Leary" <jdo@world.std.com>; "Erik Olson" <erik@thekrib.com>; "Karen Randall" <krandall@world.std.com>; "Mike Hellweg" <MichaelAngelaH@aol.com> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 5:51 PM Subject: AGA uncommittment > You know I see the AGA not wanting to get drawn into this suit because it > would be a big drain on the resources and possibly negate all that's been > done, especially in the last 2 years. BUT isn't there some way that you can > even think about putting up a banner that points to some of these URL's? > Something at least minimally should be said in the magazine too with the > appropriate URL's. Acting like it doesn't exist doesn't seem to be sitting > too well with some members. I really wish you can find something that will > show a little middle ground. Otherwise this moron that started the lawsuit > has already won. > > Sincerely, > > Gary Lange > gwlange@mindspring.com > > APD snippet below > --------------------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:22:20 -0600 > From: "Roger S. Miller" <rgrmill@rt66.com> > Subject: Re: AGA stance on the defense fund. > > Erik Olson wrote: > > > The AGA steering committee deliberated over whether to > > take an official stance on this about a month ago. Irregardless of how we > > feel as individuals in the case, it was decided that it would be > > inappropriate for the AGA as an organization to take an official stance on > > this issue. > > > Thanks for the news, Erik > > It think it's like Eldridge Cleaver said so long ago. You're either > part of the problem or you're part of the solution. I guess we know > where AGA is. > > > Thus, the article in _The Aquatic Gardener_ will be informational > > reporting, there is no link to the defense (or Pets Warehouse, for that > > matter) on our website, and most likely we could not have any official > > activities at the convention. > > Yeah. Just ignore the problem and it will go away. > > > Roger Miller > > ------------------ To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com with "unsubscribe aga-sc" in the body of the message. Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-sc When asked, log in as username is "aga-sc", and password "showy".