Re: Proposed Action, WAS: RE: flame wars

From: Natasha Vita-More (natasha@natasha.cc)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 00:16:27 MDT

  • Next message: Natasha Vita-More: "Re: cnn's take on aging"

    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