Facts vs. Outraged opinions Part 4

Home/Topics/Facts vs. Outraged opinions Part 4

Facts vs. Outraged opinions Part 4

Home Forums Let’s Talk Facts vs. Outraged opinions Part 4

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5595
    Dan Roberts
    Keymaster

    Editor’s Note: My Rana’s home from the hospital and doing great. For those who called and/or emailed us with well-wishes, a most gracious “thank you.”

     For that “blogger” who received a “flurry of messages” (anybody doubt those messages came solely from the voices in his head?) I’m happy to say that reports of her “declining health” have been (in the words of Mark Twain) “greatly exaggerated.”

     Here now, Part IV of my five part postings – just wait till you read tomorrow’s post. 

    Gentle Facts v. Outraged Opinion Part IV

    Let’s discuss the “apology” by the SCA Board of Directors given to Coleman. While the “other” blogger saw fit to print the apology, see if you can read it without gagging.

    As discussed in my previous posts, Coleman was outraged at the actions taken by my Rana. He thundered that he was slandered, defamed, insulted, and metaphorically lynched.

    Question # 1: Why? Could it be that someone who demands unconditional respect refuses to reciprocate anytime anyone disagrees with him?

    Now I know what you’re thinking. This whole kerfuffle could have been avoided if Rana sent an apology letter explaining what and why she did, and by saying “I’m sorry.”

    But she did and it was sincere. More importantly, she meant every word of it.

    The response – her apology was REJECTED.

    Coleman demanded that the apology had to be from the SCA Board of Directors.

    Question # 2: Again, why? The Board NEVER had any involvement, input, or even discussion with the actions taken by Rana and CLC.

    But that was of no merit to Coleman. It had to be an “official” SCA Board response that sincerely acknowledged the “rush to judgment” and that the Board “recognize that the AAHC is an integral part of the SCA community.”

    Under the circumstances, it appeared to me that the SCA Board had to choose:

    It could advise Coleman that under the given circumstance, there was nothing for the Board to apologize for, or,

    Keeping in mind what Coleman had threatened (see Part III) it decided to give him what he demanded and in Coleman’s words: “Do the right thing and let the healing begin.”

    So, the Board wrote up and sent Coleman its apology letter – REJECTED.

    So, the Board wrote up and sent Coleman its 2nd apology letter – REJECTED.

    So, the Board wrote up and sent Coleman its 3rd apology letter – REJECTED.

    So, the Board wrote up and sent Coleman its 4th apology letter – REJECTED.

    You beginning to see a trend?

    After five total apology letters, the Board apparently had had enough of this bullying (or stupidity). They stood united and advised Coleman to take it or leave it.

    But then behind the Board’s back (and without its approval or even knowledge) one Board member had a “back-channel” secret meeting with an AAHC Board member and they eventually came up with a great idea – mediation.

     Question # 3: Who ever heard of mediation over a “heart-felt” apology?

    By the way, did you know that Coleman, in agreeing to an impartial mediator, stated : “Our preference is to have an African American as our choice.”

    Read that statement again – only this time, flip it. Can you imagine the outrage if the Board responded that its mediator preference was based on a person’s skin color or racial/ethnic background?

    And keep in mind this statement by Coleman as to his good faith: The AAHC is eager to reach a resolution that will allow this matter to be brought to a conclusion without inflicting additional harm on the Association.

    Anyway, after eight hours (8 hours!) of mediation, the apology letter was found to be acceptable to Coleman.

    Question # 4: How heart-felt do you think that apology letter is?

    You think it was more an honest expression of remorse, or rather: “Here’s your apology. Now cease inflicting additional harm on the Association.”

    Unfortunately, the apology did not end this issue, it merely exasperated it. And if Coleman was really concerned about SCA instead of his ego (after all, he wrote the vast majority of the apology letter) it’s time to for him to declare “victory” and move on.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    #5599
    Dixie Zinn
    Participant

    This diversity has gone beyond the pale. I am disgusted that Coleman was allowed to get away with his slander and showing his true color of hatred and bias. If Coleman and the rest of his racist group don’t like living here in Anthem, why don’t they pack up and leave. No one is forcing them to stay. I for one am sick and tired of the lies that are being thrown around by the Democrats. Everything that comes out their mouths is a lie. It is truly unbelievable that they think the country is falling for there racist, lying and trying to cheat on a Federal Election. They have proven over and over again that they will stop at nothing to cheat and lie and try to destroy our great nation. Coleman should be ashamed of using the race card. No one looks at the color of your skin only one’s character.

    #5600
    HIGH MESA
    Participant

    Dan,

    First I am glad to hear Rana is doing well after her surgery and give her my Best Wishes.

    I am in agreement with your comments and I am disgusted with the SCA Board; I have indicated since the election that I support Rana and would be happy to help if and when needed; however, I also have said I don’t think this Board will accomplish what Rana hopes to get done. My concern has always been that Rana did not have the votes or other Directors who were watching her back! I still believe that!

    Below is take from your 4th article; I am confused as why if a Board member decided to engage a SCA member, especially in this case with the “history” involved, without Board approval or the Board Presidents approval, then why hasn’t that Board member been removed by the entire Board for their actions. Surely, this must be against the NRS 116; SCA governing documents and the Board Policy Manuel. I hope you can shed some light on this matter and more importantly indicate what this Board is doing to seek this removal.

    I look forward to your next article and will provide further comments thereafter as to this entire process, including a reaction to the Sad little mans comments (berman).

    Peter Brown

    But then behind the Board’s back (and without its approval or even knowledge) one Board member had a “back-channel” secret meeting with an AAHC Board member and they eventually came up with a great idea – mediation.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.