From: Natasha Vita-More (natasha@natasha.cc)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 00:16:27 MDT
At 07:57 PM 7/20/03 -0700, you wrote:
>--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha@natasha.cc> wrote:
> > At 01:34 PM 7/20/03 -0700, Mike wrote:
> >
> > >Well, I don't think so, nor do many others who have emailed me with
> > >their support. Nor can you point to any actual accomplishments,
> > >either.
> > >The Luddites continue to win, legislatively, commercially, and in
> > >public sentiment.
> >
> > I have said this to you many time, Mike: Start your own
> > organization. If you can do it better than anyone else, then do it!
>
>That isn't the point. You claimed that you were achieving things. I
>asked you to name them. You can't, so you deflect.
For goodness sakes, calm down. I cannot openly discuss ExI business
without board consent.
> > I am not the person to be
> > blaming. The fact that I did not pass on the baton for Pro-Act is
> > (1) no one qualified to take it on emailed me asking to help out;
>
>i.e. when I emailed you, offering my help and support, and I got
>absolutely no response from you, it is because you thought I was not
>qualified... which confirms my earlier statement that you used Pro-Act
>to deflect the community from supporting my efforts which preceded
>yours.
I didn't want Pro-Act to go in a overly libertarian direction. You are
very committed to libertarian ideas and I am not very committed to any
political party, as I don't see one that is futuristic enough.
> > (2) I could not think of any one person who was objective enough to
>take it on;
>
>Which only demonstrates you have no idea what it takes to run an
>activist organization. Objectivism doesn't count as a major
>qualification, moreover your opinion of me as not being objective is
>only because my anti-Green leanings conflict with your Green leanings.
>How objective is that on your part?
I didn't say "objectivism", I said "objective. I am not a Green Party
member and I do not support the Green Party in any way, shape or form.
> > (3) I was not sure if Pro-Act was indeed the right direction to
> > go in with dealing with the current political and social global
> > anti-biotechnology leanings.
>
>Then why did you even start it? Perhaps because you saw my efforts as a
>threat to your position as the queen of extropia?
I'll just let this slip by because it is so ridiculous that I don't want to
answer it. You are not a threat to me, Mike. Although we are in different
universes, it would better to be supportive of one another. I don't think
you really want to burn bridges with me.
Moving on:
> >
> > In the latest newsletter I asked people to comment. That would have
> > been a great opportunity to you to communicate with me about what we
> > are doing.
>
>Cut the horseshit, Natasha. I've attempted to communicate with you
>several times over the last two years about this issue and I've been
>totally rebuffed. Greg Burch knows this because I've communicated with
>him my concerns and asked him what the hell is going on with you
>people. You have not returned any of my emails about this issue since Extro5.
Above, I was referring to your claim that ExI is not doing anything. I
listed several items we are currently working on in the newsletters.
Now on a different subject and one you mention above, which is not what I
was talking about above, You want to know about your attempts to
communicate with me and your communicating with Greg about working on
Pro-Act or questioning what happened to Pro-Act. I remember you
criticizing me and then stating on the list that you were going to start
your own organization. I never saw it and thought that you either formed
it and were still working on it, or decided not to form it.
Natasha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 22:23:28 MDT