|
Post by Andrey on Mar 26, 2004 7:07:36 GMT -6
To: Gulf Coast Division Members and Clubs From: Andrey Geva, Gulf Coast Division Chair‚
This past year we have made improvements and entered a new era in terms of representation and results. None of this could have been accomplished without the help and assistance of my fellow officers who were able to put the past behind and look to the future. Special thanks to all the members of the Division who did participate and give their time and resources. The results of this collaboration and mutual efforts are:
• official Division website active and open to help spread information and communication between members and officers • tournament and bout committees formed of representatives of each club then existing within the Division • cooperation between clubs (Katy Blades Invitational Tournament, Battles on the Bayou, free fencing at BCFA the first Friday of the month) • membership increased from about 350 to 563 (61% increase)
We are proud of the sportsmanship and goodwill of many member clubs, and the achievements of our young competitive fencers.
For the upcoming year it would be great to implement the following program:
• all clubs to work with the Division by coordinating the schedule of the activities (fencing programs, tournaments, fencing for fun occasions) • organize regional and super regional events with certified and qualified judges and in venues where professional tournaments can be held successfully • assist the clubs in the Division which are outside the Houston metropolitan area • have regular contacts with the other Divisions of the Section start a sponsorship program for major events
Once we implement these ideas we will encourage fencers from other divisions to come to our tournaments to compete. We have an opportunity to really make the Gulf Coast the strongest Division in the Section.
With your help and support I would like to continue this building process together with my fellow officers and volunteers in order to improve fencing in the Gulf Coast area. It’s important that we all stand and work together.
On April 3, I ask you to support me as Gulf Coast Division Chair to continue this program.
Warm regards, Andrey Geva
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Mar 26, 2004 7:32:55 GMT -6
Sounds good to me.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by Ivanhoe on Mar 26, 2004 8:25:17 GMT -6
You've got my vote Andrey.
|
|
Forwards Not Backwards
Guest
|
Post by Forwards Not Backwards on Mar 26, 2004 8:56:31 GMT -6
Finally some positive and constructive ideas to benefit the Division and the sport of fencing.
Thank you for sharing your vision.
Forwards, Not Backwards!
|
|
I Fence therefore I am
Guest
|
Post by I Fence therefore I am on Mar 26, 2004 12:26:07 GMT -6
Andrey, your honesty and candidness is appreciated. Your hard work and vision for the GCD is refreshing. I will support your re-relection. We should all try to transcend the negativity that has plagued the Houston fencing scene for the past few ? months/years???. Let's start afresh with a new spirt of cooperation. P/S Schlager ... thanks for your contribution to the fencing community in the form of this forum.
|
|
|
Post by Savien on Mar 26, 2004 12:30:08 GMT -6
Ah, actual campaigning!
We have the thread for us to post our wish lists, but who ELSE is actually seeking office?
Speech! Speech!
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Mar 26, 2004 22:55:29 GMT -6
"Savien", you may be perplexed by difficulty getting the debate you are seeking. I personally am familiar with only one other person who has expressed interest in seeking the chair in the last four months, and that interest might have been dependent on an opponent's hat being in the ring which is not now in the ring. Beyond that, it seems what is going on is voters (in some cases very substantial groups of voters) dragging candidates to the election, not candidates dragging voters to the election. You can infer some of the details from some of what you find elsewhere on this forum.
"Savien", you might actually have to pin down some of the popular reluctant candidates to extract from them a public statement even of willingness to serve!
|
|
Al Battar the sex of angels
Guest
|
Post by Al Battar the sex of angels on Mar 28, 2004 1:30:04 GMT -6
What kind of a monkey business is this? Mat are you warning us that we should be prepared for some sort of a coup by the "Jim Jones Followers" reviving en masse from their hole in the ground and pushing for an enabler of the Armani of Fencing to be elected by a stack of proxies? If this could or will happen, the responsibility will be with all of the fence sitters and the others who have not yet spoken up against this shame in our division. What I don't understand is the stand off approach I see in the various postings as of late. You and others have worked your unique intellectual resources in what I consider "sex of the angels" issues while politely ignoring the pile of manure bulging under our stained carpet. Few days ago I asked some simple questions about what we, as a division, should do with the scandals uncovered so far about Hamza. Oh yes, there is plenty more, and it will come out when proven beyond doubt. So, back to the question: What are we going to do about it? While some of you use an electronic microscope analyzing molecular structures within the bylaws, we don't pay attention to the 747 pointing at us with the intention to blow us off 9/11 style. Unless we use a "banana republic" model, candidates should be announced BEFORE election day (say at least a week prior) and then members can vote for them on election day. No one should be allowed to show up with a bunch of proxies for an unannounced candidate on election day. Even Saddam Hussein posted his candidature BEFORE and luckily for him got close to 100% of the votes. No surprises there! What will it take for some common sense and responsibility to take charge? Am I the only one that doesn't understand? Al Battar
|
|
|
Post by S Simpson on Mar 28, 2004 14:54:55 GMT -6
I really like the idea of having a slate of candidates set prior to the election. Maybe we could even have absentee voting for those who can't be at the meeting (like Dan). Then everyone could actually vote for who they wanted instead of who their proxy wanted. It could reduce the power block voting, & return to a fair (or somewhat fair) system.
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Mar 28, 2004 17:51:08 GMT -6
Finally someone with a good suggestion and a first agreement on something. The system as is designed now is easy to be manipulated by people with personal agendas oblivious of the needs of the silent majority, the uninformed, and the Division at large.
Without criticising the excellent discussions between MTD and the other participants on, by comparison, relatively minor points in the bylaws, let's make sure that we operate with a minimum of election logic.
People must know in advance who the candidates are. Candidates, if they are to be taken seriously, shall put forward a platform when they declare their candidacy. No more "April surprises" by someone showing up with proxies for an unannounced candidate.
Anything else will make a mockery of the entire process, with or without the suggested and discussed changes in the bylaws. Let's keep the right priorities.
Flamberge
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Mar 29, 2004 2:01:27 GMT -6
What's going on?
This thread was started by Andrey as the first candidate to play fair and in the open, announcing his candidature to the Chair and proposing the current slate of officers to continue the good deeds. The initial responses were all positive. I thought we had a good chance to fend off any April surprise attack by people with personal agendas and armed with stacks of proxies ready to take advantage of the absurde regulations we have governing elections in our division.
Two days ago John T. posted that though reluctantly, he was going to throw his hat in the ring. Why? I, and many others thought that John was on Andrey's team. Now I see a slate that does not include Andrey. What is Matt referring to in his post above? What's up?
Andrey and the team have done an excellent job under very difficult circumstances. He deserves the chance to complete the task for at least one more year, hopefully without the needless distractions of this past year.
My support for Andrey is because of his proven experience in building teams and fencing programs. If we want, and I certainly do, the sport of fencing to grow in our division, we must concentrate on youth development programs, not just for fun, but as a competitive national and international activity.
For this I trust Andrey honesty, experience, international connections, more than any other. Without national competitions and results, without international successes of our young fencers, we will continue to be a group of old geezers squabbling about philosophically interesting, but practically insignificant details of the bylaws, and few other things.
We must have a program that develops athletes. For this we must have someone who has done it before, who has the support of the young athletes, the respect of other coaches, the international network to have useful exchanges with other fencing centers in Europe.
The rest of us can discuss ad nauseam "sex of the angels" issuues, how to help new startup clubs in the Division to progress from dry to electric fencing, and clean up our Augean stables from the manure and neglect of the years past (I sure hope we can find a Hercules ready to give a hand).
Let's put aside our personal last minute calls and programs to benefit or correct this or that detail. Give Andrey the chance to make it work for at least one more year. And please work with him for the good of our competitive program in the Division.
My vote, and my recommendation is for Andrey as Chair, and reconfirm all willing former officers for one more year.
Flamberge for Andrey as Chair
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Mar 29, 2004 7:45:15 GMT -6
The offending post has been removed.
Happy?
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Mar 29, 2004 11:32:51 GMT -6
Nothing schlager does offends me nor should offend anyone else. I am seldom offended, but frequently puzzled when I don't understand something. So I ask questions in the hope that my queries do not offend the susceptibilities of other parties.
I am always open to discussions and suggestions by others. I wish however that all this is conducted in an open forum and within a clear framework to avoid making wrong assumptions about anybody and/or their intentions.
I compliment you and your work to make this open dialog possible. Had this forum been in place several years ago, many of the problems of the division would have been rectified and the wounds would have healed without progressing to the festering stage they have.
Though fencing is an individual sport, I am a strong believer in the team spirit. This is all I wish and hope for. I encourage you and everyone else to continue to be part of the team with Andrey.
Thank you.
Flamberge
|
|
the ghost of Thomas Jefferson
Guest
|
Post by the ghost of Thomas Jefferson on Mar 30, 2004 11:23:52 GMT -6
And now back to practical issues... I believe we have all become so distracted with the recent scandal that we have forgotten to attend to some basic issues. I am dumbfounded to see no proper election process in place within our division. These procedures are basic to every democracy and democratic organization or club including the one we live in! At this very time of year, every year all corporations send out the board of directors ballot and candidate information along with the previous years financial report. We are in the midst of a presedential election year and have the very example before our eyes yet we have forgotten to see! Yes, candidates are supposed to announce their intentions to run for office. They are supposed to file the appropriate document by a specified deadline--well in advance of the elections. I am surprised to see we do not have the exact same procedure within the gulf coast division. Since our division is not represented by discrete parties it is not sensibile to have a "primaries" process. Instead I propose that every candidate who intends to run for election must obtain a certain percentage of signatures from the population of eligible voters within our gulf coast division. This will force candidates to hit the campaign trail and in turn require candidates to have a real and viable agenda/platform to potentially bring to their office. The division website should have candidate photos, bios and platforms posted. This will also serve to put the names of realistic and electable candidates on the ballot and not group of wanna-bes who have put forth no real platform to benefit our division. Again, a candidate with the necessary signatures should file this by a certain deadline with the existing executive committee--well in advance of the elections. We also need to "clean up" the proxy process. It is absurd to have a "mass proxy" procedure. This is pure madness and against democratic principles. Every voter is responsible for their individual vote-period. This is the most fundamental principle of democracy. All proxies should be filled out by the individual voter and submitted directly to the existing executive committee. The club a voter belongs to should in no way be involved in the voting, proxying or election process. This means voting and proxying should be a private process without outside influences or pressures. Proxy forms should be made available to download from the division website. I also propose a formal election committee be formed at election time each year to handle candidate paperwork, disemenate information to the voters, manage the voting process and proxies. On election day a private room or "voting booth" should be setup so voters can cast their vote in private without outside influence or distraction. If we are to legitimize the office of the Executive Committee of our Gulf Coast Division then we must in turn have a proper elections process in place so our officers are credible and supported by the members of the division. Our division will only be as strong and successful as the individuals we elect to the Executive Committee. Who wants a candidate in office whom everyone knows was not truly elected there? We do not need any more "magicians" in office nor do we need a magicians voting process. After all weren't democratic ideals formed to circumvent corruption and to provide fair and equal representation to all and not just a the special interests of a few???
|
|
|
Post by Fencing Mom on Mar 30, 2004 13:37:04 GMT -6
For three years I heard a lot of whining and no action. Now that Andrey has made improvements to the Division some folks want in. Let Andrey finish baking the pie before taking a piece of it or better yet help him make the Gulf Coast Division known for its fencers not for the bickering and scandal. Thanks. Ya'll have a good one.
|
|
Al Battar for Thomas Jefferson
Guest
|
Post by Al Battar for Thomas Jefferson on Mar 30, 2004 13:53:58 GMT -6
To the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, THANK YOU! I hope your 'revival' will inspire and focus some of the well intentioned but still confused members of our division.
Can we at least agree on the process, if not the candidates? Who can honestly claim that what we have now in place is fair? Is it a wonder that we have experieced the troubles of the past? Lastly, why did no one ever raise this point before?
Since some of these questions ar retorical in nature, let me make a suggestion to correct the wrong and look forward in a positive way.
1. Election date is upon us (this Saturday). Any suggested change in the procedure cannot be democratically discussed and is impossible to implement. Therefore, I recommend that we extend the current officers and their positions for one more year.
2. We should form a committee open to everyone interested in the good of the division and the democratic process to set the rules by which we elect officers using a reasonable model of ways and time to allow the different positions and candidates to be discussed. The committee will make their recommendations to all the members 3 months after it has been formed.
3. The next 3 months shall be used to discuss, revise the final version in a dialog open to all members of the Division. So, after 6 months we will have a final document which will be submitted to a vote by all the members, and hopefully will pass and be approved.
4. The next 6 months will be used to announce candidates, programs, discussions, and finally elections for the next year.
This time schedule may be modified by lengthening/shortening each period, but a year from now we will have a system in place which resembles the transition from Saddam Hussein regime to a free Iraq. No ethnic reference here, but Rome wasn't built in a day either, and it would be too presumptuous to assume that we could.
Al Battar for Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Mar 30, 2004 15:17:53 GMT -6
There are some fundamental misunderstandings about the election process in the Division.
People are complaining that candidates for office are not being required to make certain disclosures in advance of the election.
Other people are complaining that they have no way to put forward a single motion, which might pass or fail, to elect simultaneously more than one person to more than one office.
And, there are complaints about proxy vote mechanisms (and perhaps even confusion about the difference between a proxy and an absentee ballot -- the former is required and the latter is forbidden).
These ideas do have merit. However, notwithstanding their merit, they are currently not legal.
The elections must be held as described by the Bylaws of the Division. And, those Bylaws have read exactly the same way about the conduct of the elections since a time when the USFA was called the AFLA. I certainly see room for improvement, and I personally would endorse certain possible changes to the system, but the system we have right now is the system we have right now.
Nominations from the floor of any legal candidate (even in the complete absence of any earlier action by or for the candidate) are required to be allowed.
While there is no explicit prohibition of a motion to elect more than one person to more than one position at once, my parliamentary opinion is that it would require a two-thirds vote (not majority) to pass, and that proxy votes would have to be included. (It would be a combined motion to remove from nomination anybody already nominated for the offices in question, to nominate the people involved, and to close nominations -- removing existing nominations and closing nominations would require a two-thirds vote, and since the effect of passing the motion would be to cause people to be elected, the rights of proxy votes in elections would have to be preserved.)
Proxies are not even mentioned in the Bylaws of the Division. By default, they are excluded (and the Division Bylaws do require votes in person for Bylaw amendments). Proxies are being allowed for elections only because the USFA Bylaws explicitly mention proxies and in person votes for division elections.
It is in the power of the membership to change the Bylaws. However, the Bylaw concerning changing the Bylaws must be followed. And, it would create a legal morass to change the election Bylaw Saturday morning before the election happens and expect that it could be enforceable on such short notice.
You will see that there are a lot of proposals to change the Bylaws (but only one of them is a fundamental change of substance). People have indeed spoken of revising the election Bylaw. But, such a change seemed to be one which would require sufficently long consideration and sufficiently heated debate that it would be an unnecessary irritant to the Division to be debated on April 3rd. I do not want to discourage anybody with interest in reforming the procedures related to elections, but I suggest that the right time to attend to these matters is after the upcoming election.
|
|
|
Post by miggs880 on Mar 30, 2004 18:52:22 GMT -6
I agree with the "fencing Mom." Let's continue to advance - not retreat - (pardon the allusion). Why mess with a good thing? Andrey and his officers have made the initial step in the right direction and shown that they are sincere in their efforts to improve communication, strengthen the GCD, and be a neutral governing body. I see Andrey's leadership as especially professional, fair and striving to represent all fencers in the division. Let these good guys have another go at it! Then next year we will see if we really need to reshuffle our deck. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em!
|
|
Mona Lisa Art Critic
Guest
|
Post by Mona Lisa Art Critic on Mar 30, 2004 20:41:21 GMT -6
Matt, I see you analizing Leonardo's Mona Lisa with a microscope, explaining the different shades of green of the landscape in the background (extraordinarily beautiful by the way), but you don't hear the crowd behind you protesting that all they want to see is the complete painting and the mysteriously smiling lady.
Several people have voiced their discontent, outrage even, for the process. All, I believe, realize that this must change. Most, I hope, feel that a prudent and logical -- albeit not legal, according to the bylaws -- course of action is to extend for one more year what we have in place, i.e., the current officers as a team. So, why not propose it officially and vote. The existing "team" will run against others with different agendas and priorities. We'll see what happens then.
Now this may not be all in accordance with bylaws which are obsolete anyway. Did the Division EVER operate in accordance to the bylaws? I don't have your intellect to disect the hodgepodge of the bylaws, nor the desire to go through the process. But I wish we all look at this with consistency and common sense.
The sins of the past -- tricked elections, no financial accountability of any kind for 4 years, misappropriation of money from the USFA, executive committees that never questioned the misdeeds of the chairman, etc. etc. were really big issues which were swept under the carpet.
Since February, when fortunately you were put in as Secretary by Andrey, things have finally begun to change. I give you and the other members of the "new" team all the credit for this improvement. Please don't you guys drop the ball by splitting and starting anew in reverse, just because the rules are the rules.
The rules were never used to prevent bad things to happen in the past. Let's not use them now to stop good things which have already started to bear fruits, to continue.
This, in my opinion, is what the crowd tells you as you explain the beauty of the landscape of the Mona Lisa ... They want to enjoy the smile of the lady, OK? We can examine the beautiful landscape behind, later.
Mona Lisa Art Critic
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Mar 30, 2004 21:19:38 GMT -6
"Mona Lisa Art Critic", the general situation is worse than you imagine. I am hearing talk of the validity of the elections being contested, by more than one faction, even though the elections have yet to happen. And, due to an embarrassing hodge-podge of excruciatingly slow mail delivery and good-intentioned but not necessarily legally enforceable action by the Executive Committee to minimize the probability of any proxy fraud, the Division is now in a fine pickle where almost anything imaginable which happens in the next five days will leave some party with legitimate grounds to request that the USFA invalidate the election. The task before us now is to try to proceed as best we possibly can through the situation. To disregard the election Bylaw when the alternative to obey it also exists is not a good way to discourage a losing party from requesting invalidation. With any luck, we might emerge from the annual meeting with election results 1) which will satisfy the majority and 2) which the minority feel would be unlikely to be improved if the election were invalidated and a new election held later.
"Mona Lisa Art Critic", if I understand you correctly, you seek to deviate from the Bylaws in one specific way Saturday -- trying to elect a slate. You may support deviating from the Bylaws in other ways, but if so I think you consider the window of opportunity for those other deviations to have already closed. I stand by my parliamentary opinion that an actual motion which would cause a slate to become elected would require a two-thirds vote with the inclusion of proxy votes to be binding.
However, I do agree that votes on slates have merit. Indeed, I said as much when a slate got brought to my attention a couple of months ago -- a particular slate which has not even been mentioned on this forum yet. (I particularly thought a slate would be appropriate because the propsed slate contained at least one person whose willingness to serve was contingent on the people with whom he would have to deal as fellow Officers, and I thought it wise to offer the electorate to accept or reject as it saw fit the option of this person with the full knowledge that his service was contingent on other choices.) It was to my disappointment when later reseearch showed that one-third of the assembly could prevent a majority from adopting a slate.
Note that I am not arguing academic matters now (although I do love academic arguments). No matter what slate you have in mind, I epxect that there will be votes at the meeting who will not appreciate at least one of the people proposed, and who do have the right to nominate their choice as long as nominations are open (and there is no right of the majority to close nominations).
If you can muster two-thirds support (including proxies) for any specific slate, I see no issues of legality. More power to you if you achieve this! And, this entire conversation is moot. But, I fear you will not find such a strong consensus for any specific slate.
If there is only a majority supporting some specific slate, I have a suggested solution which is dependent on the cooperation of those who would lose the vote. Have the meeting suspend normal rules of procedure and conduct straw polls (counting proxies) to explore if there exists some specific slate has sufficiently broad support. Then, ask for the cooperation of the opponents of the slate to refrain from nominating anybody but the people on the slate. In the case of unopposed nominations, the election is automatically unanimous by the Bylaws. But, there would be nothing binding about the straw polls, and there would be nothing binding about any stated or implied promise of an opponent to avoid a competitive nomination.
|
|
|
Post by Flamberge on Mar 31, 2004 9:12:32 GMT -6
Going through the various postings on this and other threads relating to the election campaign, it is evident that there are different points of view held by the members who participate in this forum.
One is existential and philosophical, the other one is practical. It is interesting to see how parents of young fencers who dedicate their time and resources to develop whatever talents their kids have or may have in the future in this sport of fencing have a practical approach to all this.
The philosophical approach is much more cautious and requests that we adhere to the rules, or else change the rules in an established process and then go ahead.
I urge both camps to use common sense and be respectful of the process unless we are heading into an absurd situation. As it was mentioned before, it would be tragic if the "rules" were to be enforced to stifle the electoral process but not applied to protect the division from the misdeeds of the past.
Take a deep breath, think logically and practically and then let's do what makes sense.
By the way, in all these discussions, the name of a valid contributor to the division has received in my opinion not enough recognition, August Skopic, a real fencer, a parent, a club owner, and a coach. I personally wish that he continues to team up with Andrey as the vice chair of the division.
Let's common sense prevail.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Guerinot on Mar 31, 2004 10:49:41 GMT -6
Gentlemen,
Take a breath, breath out and let's procede.
It's very simple. To put it in fencing terms it's a simple advance lunge.
Although, certain random thoughts or insecurities can deviate the fencer from execution and completing the touch. DO not let that happen here.
Vladimir Naslymov told me once, "boy to make the perfect touch you should close your eyes and let your body do the work. Your body, heart and sould already know what to do." If he wasn't absolutley right. On occasion when the score is 14-14 I just close my eyes and score the touch.
I can tell you from experience and from my fencing journal where I keep notes all the bouts I fence and fencers I come up against I've landed this touch just over 70 percent of the time.
Back to reality:
We have a great group of guys who worked hard this year to make things FAIR. That's important for everyone. The group who has brought us to the horizon has now began to have it's first test of unity. Don't waiver! Stay together, win the election as a team and then address the issues that you have. Everyone on the team has shown a kind ear when someone has something to say. It's unusual to find a group of people who work together perfectly without argument. Just hold an officers meeting this week and talk face to face. Layout a timeline and agenda for the next year that all of you are willing to support, laugh at the last weeks antics, go get a beer and watch the YANKEES lose their next game.
You guys need to stick together. The Division needs everyone of you. Thanks for this years hard work.
Highest Regards, Tim Guerinot
AKA the Notorious Hot Head
|
|
Thomas Jefferson again
Guest
|
Post by Thomas Jefferson again on Mar 31, 2004 10:54:19 GMT -6
Here is a cold herring across everyones face, just to wake you up. As we sit here and bandy words Hamza is up to his usual tactic *again* to get elected. I know this as absolute fact. He has the largest club membership and therefore the largest number of votes to capture. And capture them he does, or rather hold them captive. Hamza does not have to hit the campaign trail nor even lift the telephone. All he has to do is have his wife pester every member with "we need your proxy vote, please fill in Mauro's name" right there in the middle of the fencing club in front of everyone. Under this direct pressure who will say no? Every sucker reluctantly, blindly or stupidly relents. Sure, there are no guns to anyone's head, but most people cannot stand up to social pressure especially when they know there will be retaliation against their fencing child or "rumors" about their reputation. Is this democracy? NO!!!! As I stated before every individual is responsible for their own vote--period. They should be able to cast this vote without any outside influence, completely independently and autonomously. The system must change and not according to Hamza's twisted will. In the future I will be so bold as to suggest we institute online voting. This will eliminate the need for proxy voting, absentee ballots or even showing up to the polling site. It also guarantees that almost everyone will cast a vote since it is so bloody simple. What to do in the present situation? It is simple and I agree, we must extend the current administration until fair and equitable bylaws are in place for this is necessary to avoid any future tyranny and to protect the rights of every individual within the Gulf Coast Division. Harken to my words of the past, though already spoken yet they still linger in the hearts of righteous men... WHEN REVOLUTION IS THE ONLY ANSWER: "As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256 "The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548 "When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807. ME 11:282 "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." --Thomas Jefferson: his motto.
Heed my words or you all shall become slaves again....
|
|
Al Battar and Fibonacci
Guest
|
Post by Al Battar and Fibonacci on Mar 31, 2004 16:04:58 GMT -6
To the learned friend, Thomas Jefferson, I am so glad that you decided to come down from your Monticello to grace us all with common sense quotes.
From my different prospective on the Topkapi hill overlooking the Bosphorus, I concur with your analysis and recommendations. Reference was made to "sex" and "angels" during this learned discussion, but maybe a historical prospective should be put in place. As the Romans used to say "historia magistra vitae."
Throughout history there are numerous examples of conflicts between two well meaning parties about methods and procedures, and while the two are arguing their points, ALWAYS a rascal emerges and takes advantage of the situation, overpowering them both, at least for a while, while they are intent on scoring minor points with each other.
I remember with fondness the incredible progress made by the Arab scholars between 800 and 1300 A.D. who translated into Arabic all the ancient texts -- therefore preserving them for posterity -- absorbing everything that was good from anyone -- numbers would be one example -- while the heirs of the great classical civilizations, the guys with tradition, were indeed discussing what the sex of the angels was: male or female?
A bright young fellow, Leonardo from Pisa, whose father was a rather dumb but rich merchant in Tangiers, talking with Arab merchants in the port noticed that they were manipulating numbers in a very different way than what everybody else, involved in the sex of the angels issue, was doing with the good old Roman numbers. Leonardo, who soon would be known as Fibonacci (son of Dumbo -- isn't this an irony that this is the nickname of one of the brightest minds that ever lived), immediately understood that the Arabic system was infinitely better, began to use it, and started to teach it to others.
Problem: the powers of the time objected to this new and practical method -- remember they were still concerned with the sex of the angels -- and did everything they could to stifle the adoption of the new system using all legalistic systems to prevent the use of this system. Remarkably, a main argument was that Arabic numbers were very easy to forge -- consider the number 1 and 7 for instance and compare it with I and VII --sounds familiar with what we discuss now?
The powers then, the Pope on one side, the Emperor on the other, succeeded partially in that it took another 200-300 years before the 'numbers of the devil' would be adopted universally. Another group that was dead set against the new system were the accountants of the time. Try multiplying two Roman numbers in the Roman script and you'll understand why these 'geezers' wanted to maintain an incredibly complicated system which few could master and by consequence keep a tight control over the peons.
Back to our things: some well intentioned, but misguided individuals still insist in bylaw squabbling and don't see that the Armani of fencing and his cultists, some convinced, some duped, are plotting (legally?) to take over.
Here is where I join forces with the learned Jefferson and all the others who request to extend the current 'slate' of officers to continue for one more year and give time to transition from Roman numerals to the Arabic system. I hope that by now it is clear to all who is doing what to whom and for how much.
If reasonable people work together on this one, we'll all be better off. Time heals even the worst wounds, but tricks and stupidity will be rememberd and not forgiven.
In case one gets lost in this pedantic discussion and skips to the end to see the point, I repeat what is being asked by many others: EXTEND THE TIME IN OFFICE OF THE CURRENT OFFICERS OF THE DIVISION UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF ANDREY GEVA FOR ONE MORE YEAR. During this year, have all the discussions you want of what the Division should be, and if it turn out that the majority DEMOCRATICALLY chooses to maintain the Roman numerals and rejects the Arabic system, I'll regret it, but I'll live with it.
Al Battar
|
|
|
Post by MJ WYSOCKI on Mar 31, 2004 17:22:37 GMT -6
I fully concur with the learned Al Battar. These current group of officers have done well in some very hard cicumstances, and have shown not only a willingness to accept change, but the drive to initiate it. I would encourage all to re-elect these hard working men. This includes our new secretary Mr. D! He's done a fabulous job.
|
|