No, sir, I said that I see it as a breach of the blaws. You stated that I need an eye exam and asked for a cite to the specific section. Get your facts right, Mr. NC. I interpret it as being violative of Article IX, Section 2. It states: "Solicitation of funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is defined as the direct appeal on the home page of any of the websites comprising The USGenWeb Project for funding to do research, to pay for server space, to do look-ups, etc." That seems to be clear to me that we cannot solicit funds under any circumstances on any Project page. If the IAGenWeb page contains a link to "Friends of IAGenWeb", which it most certainly does, then I would argue that there is a direct solicitation. If you want to declare "Friends" to be a separate entity and not part of the Project, that is your choice, but I think it is a flagrant and obvious violation, especially given the fact that "Friends" is stored on the IAGenWeb servers. And I note that your explanation did not include an apology for your blatant and discriminatory remarks. Richard Pettys, Jr. ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Isaiah Harrison <IsaiahH@cox.net> To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:02:36 -0700 Subject: Re: RE: [STATE-COORD] Mr National Coordinator if you would please answer a few? > At 09:50 AM 8/20/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >Mr. NC, > > > >I believe that your crass comment is uncalled for and I believe that it is > >wholly improper to make such a statement on this list. It shows your > >complete and total insensitivity. What you could not know, for you do not > >know me, is that I am considered to be legally blind. My vision is horrid > >and is a point of grave distress for me, as it prevents me from being able to > >do normal activities, such as driving, because it is not correctable to > >anywhere near 20/20, let alone 20/50. To tell me or any member of this > >Project that I need an eye exam is absolutely unforgiveable. > > > >Richard Pettys, Jr. > > You are correct when you say 'What you could not know, for you do > not know me." If I had been aware of your condition I certainly > would not have made the remark. > > However, you did make the statement "I see it is a breach of our > by-laws..." and I asked the question "Would you please cite the > specific bylaw that is being violated." You have not yet answered > the question. > > -Isaiah ------- End of Original Message -------
At 11:42 PM 8/20/2003 -0400, you wrote: >No, sir, I said that I see it as a breach of the blaws. You stated that I >need an eye exam and asked for a cite to the specific section. > >Get your facts right, Mr. NC. My facts are correct. In my second message I quoted your original response--copied and pasted. >I interpret it as being violative of Article IX, Section 2. It states: >"Solicitation of funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is defined as >the direct appeal on the home page of any of the websites comprising The >USGenWeb Project for funding to do research, to pay for server space, to do >look-ups, etc." Perhaps you should visit the IAGenWeb pages so you can see what is actually there. What is there is a thank you and a link. There is no appeal on the home page. >That seems to be clear to me that we cannot solicit funds under any >circumstances on any Project page. That's not what the bylaws say. You quoted them above but apparently did not read them. >If the IAGenWeb page contains a link >to "Friends of IAGenWeb", which it most certainly does, then I would argue >that there is a direct solicitation. There is a difference between a direct solicitation and a link. >If you want to declare "Friends" to be >a separate entity and not part of the Project, that is your choice, but I >think it is a flagrant and obvious violation, especially given the fact >that "Friends" is stored on the IAGenWeb servers. Actually, IAGenWeb is stored on the Friends servers. Friends of IAGenWeb paid for the domain name and pays for the server space. >And I note that your explanation did not include an apology for your blatant >and discriminatory remarks. > >Richard Pettys, Jr. If you choose to conceal your disabilities and spring them on people unawares, you deserve no apology. The remarks were not blatant. The remarks were not discriminatory. I am well aware from personal experience of the difficulties that handicapped people face and the courage and endurance with which most of them face those difficulties. You're trying to take advantage of my lack of knowledge of your poor eyesight. I assure you, my opinion regarding what the bylaws say and mean is no different for handicapped people than it is for people without handicaps. -Isaiah