Re: AFFS

Hi Sam,

Just for the sake of clarity on one topic:

Sam Liddicott wrote:
> And when I see what appears to be veiled legal threats and accusations 
> of non-members eyeing up the funds; I just have to ask: Can't you see 
> that it's not working? Whatever you are trying to do and find out is 
> not working - you need the co-operation of these old members and 
> officers, and you aren't getting that. Many people reply and tell you 
> WHY you aren't, but you don't try another approach.

I don't think there is an issue with having previous members of the 
committee give John the answer he's looking for: so in that sense, he 
certainly hasn't lost my co-operation. What John was offered and has now 
lost was having a chat or a meeting, at his option, to go through his 
questions in depth, or to continue written communications on a "best 
effort" basis. He doesn't want that, and that's his choice. However, 
coming up with reliably accurate information isn't going to happen 
overnight - Adam has already explained issues surrounding the bank 
account, for example. That's led to accusations of "defensiveness" and 
"evasion"; well, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. Had this 
been all sweetness and light I don't think any further information would 
be available right now; so in that sense the approach makes no difference.

I'm afraid I don't personally feel the desire to involve myself heavily 
in the current discussions: I've made some suggestions and given my 
point of view on a couple of topics, and hopefully I've made it very 
clear that I'm willing to spend time on this problem (and, in fact, have 
been already this year with other ex-members). In that respect, I 
totally agree with you about tone and conduct; I suspect in another 
conversation very many people would have been entirely more willing and 
it would have been a lot more constructive.

Cheers,

Alex.