Daniel Cross said,
On Sun, August 25, 2013 1:49 pm, Daniel Cross wrote:
Lev, you say that this will be discussed at the AGM, yet the rest of your email (beginning "what will change") reads as though disincorporation is a decided matter.
"What will change" is always with the caveat of "if" the motion is passed. The question mark in the title was also meant to indicate the uncertain nature of the proposition.
A comment on the above statements on this issue, now I have worked on the committees of two volunteer orginisations and __DO__ apreciate what is trying to be done to simplify matters, but on reading the whole series of messages I must say I have same ___impression___ as Daniel, that is the merger is being presented as a done deal and one simply cannot do this in a democratic group such as this. On the whole I am not a bit surprised on the groups reaction. When presenting any information that may be headed for a hostile reception it is wise to be carefull of the wording, rereading and correcting to make sure it says what you wish it to see without giving a false impression. It has taken me usually 2 to 3 __HOURS___ to formulate a 400 word post under these conditions (an undisclosed news thread) and I am proud to say, I never had a single post missinterprited. Lindsay