Michael-
What Jon has to accept as fact is that the Camarilla Council has sustained a
disciplinary action regarding Jason and his ability to function as a part of
the ST chain. His job is to act accordingly. Whether or not you believe
Jason was in the wrong, and whether or not Jon believes Jason was in the
wrong, Jon's job to to act as if Jason was in the wrong.
In your e-mail, you make several unsubstantiated allegations. For the
purposes of clarity, I would appreciate it if you helped me understand these
claims, as they do not appear to make any sense.
You claim that our domain took the "high road." Was this before or after we
began to openly insult every officer in the chain above the local level?
You claim that you're here to play a game. What's the last Camarilla game
(local or no) that you participated in? Last Camarilla activity?
You claim that this incident is in violation of the MH and the CoC. Which
part of the investigation violated either of these texts? Which part of
Jon's standing policies violate either of these texts?
You claim that this incident may have broken US law. Which part of a private
organization with an internal conflict and dispute resolution system and
internal officer checks and balances broke US law, and which law prevents
private organizations from determining it's own officers?
You claim that supporting this action speaks volumes about the supporter.
What specifically does supporting this action say about the supporter?
You specifically state that you do not believe Jon should support the
policies and decisions of the Camarilla. Do you believe we would be better
off if officers in this organization did whatever they pleased, whenever
they pleased?
You propose that we skirt the disciplinary action by allowing our domain to
slip into Black status. Do you believe all such disciplinary actions should
be skirted, or that ours is a special case? What makes this disciplinary
action so important?
You pose a question (which I presume is rhetorical) regarding Jon and his
ability to make decisions on his own. Do you believe that Jon actively has a
vendetta against the domain, or do you believe he is doing his job?
Fundamentally Michael, you're uninformed. You're spouting off vindictive
non-sense because you're displeased with the outcome of a disciplinary
action that has been appealed and sustained. While it is your right to do
so, please do not expect that this domain will back the anarchy you propose
because we might achieve a better result.
Anthony C. [name redacted at Anthonys request]
US2003021263
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Shaffer" <pelantan@...>
To: <steelshadows@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [steelshadows] two things
> Anthony,
>
> <shakes head> If that is your belief, so be it. I'm not here to
challenge
> anyone's belief structure. However please doen't expect everyone to agree
> that what you say is fact just because you say it. Allowing a domain to
> elect who they want especially when the one they wish to elect has not
> violated any rules in the handbook is not making a special case. It's
> called doing your job. It comes down to very basic things. Jason
violated
> no rule in the handbook. You can't use the handbook to further attack him
> for what was done by someone outside the boundries of the book. Unless
you
> working on finding and excuse to punish a Domain that dared take the high
> road during all of this mess.
>
> Its rather sad the number of people these days who are willing to roll
over
> just because the powers that be tell them to. I'm here to play a game.
> Not stroke someone's ego. This entire incident has been in violation of
> the Code of Conduct and the Membership Handbook. It could even be argued
> that it was in violation for US law. To support it in any way says
volumes
> about the person supporting it. I don't care if Jon has done all sorts of
> wonderful things in the past. History is repleat with those who have done
> wonderful things all their lives and yet when push came to shove, made the
> wrong decision. This is one of those cases. If he enforces this, he will
> be putting himself with the MST on this. And considering this only came
> out after a number of us in the Domain were willing to let our Domain slip
> into black status for a month so we could put Jason back in the spot he
has
> earned it points to one of two things. Either he is going to force us to
> submit to being slaves of the Camarilla or he is going to use it as an
> excuse to disband the Domain. Those are the only two reasons for doing
> this based on the facts of _this_ case.
>
> Or are you insulting Jon and calling him nothing but a robot who only does
> things per his programing and never on the facts of an incident?
>
> Michael Shaffer
> US2003082207
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Anthony C. [name redacted at Anthonys request] <daslurpee@...>
> > To: <steelshadows@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: 8/27/2005 6:33:18 AM
> > Subject: Re: [steelshadows] two things
> >
> > Michael-
> >
> > The RST is not admitting he has it in for Pittsburgh. On the contrary,
> those
> > who have actually bothered to talk to him in a civilized and
non-offensive
> > manner have discovered that these policies have been his modus operandi
> > since he took office. For him to break these standards would be for
> > Pittsburgh to be a special case. Again.
> >
> > Your uninformed attack on Jon's office is inflammatory. Your belief in
an
> Us
> > vs. Them confrontation is extremely contending. Before you continue to
> > attack Jon, I recommend you educate yourself on his policies and
decisions
> > in cases prior to ours.
> >
> > Anthony C. [name redacted at Anthonys request]
> > US2003021263
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Shaffer" <pelantan@...>
> > To: <steelshadows@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 1:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: [steelshadows] two things
> >
> >
> > > Anthony,
> > >
> > > This list is for information and facts which I stated. Nothing bitter
> > > about it. Nothing inflamitory. Just a recitation. If that bothers
> you,
> > > perhaps you should find a list where truth is not spoken. If you read
> > > anger in my e-mails, then perhaps you should talk with someone for
there
> > > was none. <smile> Ignoring the wall doesn't make it not there. The
> same
> > > for the expressed attitude of those who have seized power. There can
be
> > no
> > > other infrence obtained from the RST's actions and words then he is
> trying
> > > to attack the Pittsburgh domain in the only way he can. He isn't
> helping
> > > the situation, he is adding fuel to the fire. There is no way this
can
> be
> > > taken any other way and keep your eyes open at the same time. <smile>
> > >
> > > Michael Shaffer
> > > US2003082207
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: Anthony C. [name redacted at Anthonys request] <daslurpee@...>
> > > > To: <steelshadows@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Date: 8/26/2005 8:15:24 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [steelshadows] two things
> > > >
> > > > Michael-
> > > >
> > > > Some of us would appriciate it if you would cease your inflammatory
> and
> > > > non-constructive comments. If you want to be bitter, there are other
> > > e-mail
> > > > lists with which you may vent your anger. Some of us are not
> subscribed
> > to
> > > > that list because we don't want to read it.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > >
> > > > Anthony C. [name redacted at Anthonys request]
> > > > US2003021263
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Michael Shaffer" <pelantan@...>
> > > > To: <steelshadows@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 7:11 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: [steelshadows] two things
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you. So the RST is admitting that he has it in for
> Pittsburgh.
> > I
> > > > > hope the RC is paying attention to this as he was the one who said
> > > > > otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael Shaffer
> > > > > US2003082207
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > [Original Message]
> > > > > > From: Kris Borer <felixplaz@...>
> > > > > > To: <steelshadows@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Date: 8/26/2005 6:52:53 PM
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [steelshadows] two things
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm assuming that he is refering to the election
> > > > > > > that will be held _after_
> > > > > > > Jason's 6 month suspention is up. So... show me
> > > > > > > the rules that back this
> > > > > > > up please.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Membership Handbook:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "After the application deadline, the officer
> > > > > > administering the election reviews the applications.
> > > > > > The officer may remove any applications that are
> > > > > > inappropriate. Legitimate reasons for removal of an
> > > > > > applicant include past disciplinary actions..."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kris Borer, DC, US2002106794
> > > > > > ****************************
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ____________________________________________________
> > > > > > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> > > > > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Visit our Domain Website at:
> > > > > > http://www.steelshadows.com
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Visit our Domain Website at:
> > > > > http://www.steelshadows.com
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Visit our Domain Website at:
> > > > http://www.steelshadows.com
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Visit our Domain Website at:
> > > http://www.steelshadows.com
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Visit our Domain Website at:
> > http://www.steelshadows.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Visit our Domain Website at:
> http://www.steelshadows.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>