You're still not making sense. In the theoretical example *you* (not
Ray) originally used, the decision about what content to teach was
made by the agency, not by UCD. UCD's support would theoretically be
forthcoming no matter what content was chosen. Any public complaint
would have to be
In a message dated 6/2/2007 8:20:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If someone wants to file a lawsuit before then, I'd say knock yourself out,
but it seems like a lot of wasted effort
Apparently, you wrote this lawsuit thing without bothering to read the
reference
Hey Karen, Sharrieff, and others,
We had a brief pre-election discussion on the list about crime reduction. This
week on PBS, NOW, there was a very relevant piece with well-done coverage of
the problem with recidivism and prison overcrowding. Here is the link to the
description:
Anyway, how long do you think it would be right to wait for an answer from UCD
before concluding they were stonewalling?
at least until john fenton's suspension is over.
In a message dated 6/3/2007 9:22:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
at least until john fenton's suspension is over.
That's a reasonable point -- but how will we know. Hasn't it been more than
the two weeks mentioned in the announcement? And, given the right of the
Thanks for the exact procedure. I had resolved not to wait any longer when you
posted the info.
I think this period of silence, (just checked UCD web site again), is enough
indication of stonewalling. The refusal of further contact on the issue by
their listserv liaison and research
this is probably better suited for one of the lawyers on the list -- I don't
know what typically happens when a company launches an internal investigation.
Do they issue press releases? Do they simply decline to comment until the
investigation is over? Does a spokes-person make periodic
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Glenn
their listserv liaison and research coordinator, Melani,
I think you mis-read their statement. Lewis said very clearly that their
liaison was Lori Brenner and that all questions should go to her, NOT Melani.
I won't
Updated information:
On Wed., the leaders of the free speech effort, the police comissioner and an
ACLU representative are having a joint meeting. Perhaps, we will receive an
announcement by Thursday about the Rittenhouse Square problem.
I believe folks involved fully understand that permits
In a message dated 6/3/2007 10:06:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know what typically happens when a company launches an internal
investigation
That's the point you just said you didn't make. This isn't a company. It
is obligated to operate in the open
Anthony West wrote:
Ray proposed that UCD not take sides in public
questions/disputes/contests, not taking sides or even appearing to take
sides. Therefore, Ray is saying, UCD could only support projects with
which there was universal contentment in this community. And since it
only takes one
Frank wrote:
You're still not making sense. In the theoretical example *you* (not Ray)
originally used, the decision about what content to teach was made by the
agency, not by UCD. UCD's support would theoretically be forthcoming no
matter what content was chosen.
You're not following my
and here you're back to arguing, this time with strawman and ad hominem!
Ray, I'm not sure the term strawman fallacy is well understood. This
strategy is so often used and rarely challenged on the listserv. I want to
share the explanation of the term.
Again, I'm not a lawyer but it strikes me that many organizations, the Catholic
Church, for example, which is also tax exempt and has had, for years, very
closed door internal investigations and hasn't been stripped of their 501
status. So, I may be off base and I'll stand correction from
In a message dated 6/3/2007 5:38:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, I'm not a lawyer but it strikes me that many organizations, the
Catholic Church, for example, which is also tax exempt and has had, for years,
very closed door internal investigations and
RE: [UC] IRS Treatment of third-party information relating to tax-exempt
orga...Cassidy,
May I add my thoughts here. Whether or not something is strictly legal or
illegal is not the same as what is ethical or what adds credibility or leads to
trust. I think you got confused in your
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: [UC] IRS Treatment of third-party information relating to
tax-exempt organizations
Al,
Can you share the citation to the law that makes non
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Glenn
Why on earth would you be asking for this requirement if you are a
lawyer?
Probably because _as_ a lawyer he knows that the burden of proof is on the
accuser. That would be you. If you think there is such a
Yo, who needs lawyers? Create your own 501(c)(3) today, with LEGALZOOM.com:
Form a non-profit corporation today.
As someone involved with a charitable cause, you understand the importance
of conserving every dollar. A non-profit corporation allows individuals to
donate money to you tax-free,
??? I love how you complain about other poster's discourse, then use the same
tactics you decry.? First, you were victimized by ad hominem attacks but have
no reluctance to use them on others.? Today, you fuss about straw men and then
adopt the method yourself.
?? What Al said: 1) As a
I've just reviewed this discussion from the point where Al made the
statement quoted below. I don't see any posts in which he provided the
requested citation. If that was done off-list, I hope that it will be
reposted for the benefit of all.
Meanwhile, I'll take the liberty of driving the
Dave is entirely right. Let's take this point one step further --
What should be morally part of the public record is usually a job for
internal agency regulators, not external agency regulators.
People who are chiefly agitated over these moral issues (really a kind of
policy concern) should
22 matches
Mail list logo
