[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Membership] Missing the point to hit a straw man?
Elliot Nesterman wrote:
Eric Weisberg wrote:
> No. We want democratic voting reflecting the will of diverse
> minorities. The resulting board will reflect the will of the majority.
I always wonder, in these discussions, how small a minority needs
to be before it loses its credibility when claiming oppression by the
I do not understand how your comment relates to my point. I was not
claiming "oppression," so the "credibility" of such claims can't be at issue. Nor, am I complaining about the "majority." Rather, I was
discussing how to form it.
However, I should have referred to "interests" rather than "minorities" in my
> With only 9 members to elect it may be difficult to get a
> director for each interest.
So, you support maximizing the number of interests
which may be represented by the 9 at large directors?
> And some of those, arguably minority, interests
> can be very vocal (Thinly veiled reference ;-)).
Thinly veiled, but still obtuse. I am not sure of your reference
nor your point. Are you saying that:
*I am complaining of oppression,
*am part of an extremely vocal minority, and
*that "being vocal" (giving voice to one's thoughts) is inappropriate?
If I have correctly deduced your meaning, what is the proper response?
Frankly, I doubt I am in a minority regarding the very limited issues about which I speak. Since the values I espouse are fairness for all
protection from capture (and consequential "oppression?") by the few,
I can't be too far out of the main stream in my objectives. We can examine how I would accomplish those objectives in other posts. And, I
will appreciate your comments, particularly if critical.
To the extent you imply that "vocal minorities" (or individuals) are
inappropriate, I suggest you are skating on thin ice and should
limit your comments to the merits of my (and other posters')
positions. Ad homonym remarks should be avoided.