galiel

What is the organizational structure of this new ii organization?

Who has a vote governing its policies and management?

Who does it directly represent?

What is its organizing principles?

What are its goals?

If none of this is settled, what was the purpose of the announcement? If it is settled, why not tell us about it? If it is not yet settled, who is deciding these things?

(BTW, the exact same questions apply to the Godless Americans PAC, and I am asking them. But this is not the place to inquire about those. This is the place where the ii pac was announced, without any substantial information).

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Secular Pinoy

Well, the II PAC has (belatedly) disclosed some information about it, though not very detailed. Which more than the AA PAC has. Since you have always supported the AA, could you enlighten us about their PAC, galiel? Their status and such? You asked a lot of questions on another thread, has the AA PAC any answers for those same questions? Their website is pretty quiet about this project.

Seems O'hair's personality has rubbed off to the organization and its admirers. AA = O'hair.

Secular Jeff

On 3 November I posted:
I was wrong when I said AA had refused to get involved in the Secular Coalition. If you have read Bill's posts (above) you will see that it was the Coalition for the Community of Reason (CCR). The Secular Coalition is an off-shoot of CCR. I apologize for the confusion.

Bill said everything that I wanted to say.

Jeff Lucas

galiel

You seem to want to make this an "us" vs. "them" issue, and since I asked some awkward questions, you seek to put me in the "them" category, which conveniently prevents ii from addressing the issues.

Questions about AA should be addressed to AA. If you had followed my 1,000+ posts here, as you imply by presuming to speak about who I do or do not support, then you would know enough to assume that I am addressing tough questions about GA PAC to them.

I am asking questions about ii on ii. I would note that, unlike ii, AA is a membership organization that actually has a voting procedure. I have no problem with ii's structure as far as running a Web site or hosting a discussion forum, but I do have a problem when ii seeks to use "membership" in this forum to imply support for their actions, which, as the last post from Jeff shows, they don't even feel a need to explain to ii'ers.

Now, do you have anything constructive to contribute?

Secular Jeff

galiel,

What part of Bill's posts do you not understand?

The members of the Coalition for the Community of Reason (CCR)and the newly formed Secular Coalition (SC) are just now becoming aware of the GAPAC. We were not approached by AA. It is hard to join or decline to join GAPAC when you have not been invited to join.

As Bill pointed out above, AA declined to join the Coalition for the Community of Reason. The Secular Coalition is an off-shoot of CCR. The SC currently consists of 3 organizations with others to be invited. I cannot speak for the other SC members but I do not see why they would not invite AA. If and when this happens, hopefully there will be a dialog opened between SC and AA.

Jeff Lucas

galiel

In that case, you can rely on my lack of support for your efforts.

I will give Secular Coalition the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Starting something new is always a challenge, and perhaps your announcement was premature and more designed to benefit from the timing of the March than an actual indication of readiness to go public. I must say that your undemocratic attitude is no particularly promising, and that, since ii has no history of member participation in decisionmaking, and, in fact, constantly reminds us that the forum is not ours to run, but that it serves the purposes and objectives of the ii board, you will understand my skepticism.

So, as I said, I provisionally reserve judgement, as well as my support.

However, if the lack of membership participation and condescending attitude toward sharing information continues, and if any public announcements of the Seculer Coalition presumes to speak on behalf of the "members" of ii, you can expect my very active opposition.

I should not have to say, since it is a completely separate issue with a completely separate and very different organization, that I will hold GA PAC to the exact same standards. I merely note it to preempt any attempts to discredit the substance of my questions by attacking the messenger.

Secular Jeff

I do not see this as an "us" vs "them" situation. There is simply two separate organizations that have been/are being formed. Neither knew of the other's existence.

Jeff Lucas

Secular Jeff

The Internet Infidels is not a membership organization. It never has been. It consists of a seven person Board of Directors.

Just because several thousand people post messages on our forums doesn't make them members of a non-membership organization.

Jeff Lucas

galiel

Perhaps more communication between organizations which share many goals would be better.

Secular Jeff

galiel said:
That was one of the reasons for forming the CCR. However, "the big boys" (AA and FFRF being among them) declined to join.

&lt;SIGH&gt;

Jeff Lucas