Gentle Facts v. Outraged Opinions – Part II

Home/Topics/Gentle Facts v. Outraged Opinions – Part II

Gentle Facts v. Outraged Opinions – Part II

Home Forums Let’s Talk Gentle Facts v. Outraged Opinions – Part II

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #5577
    Dan Roberts


    I have received many emails in response to my Dan’s posts. An overwhelming number have applauded it, but also a couple of threats regarding it.

    One thing to clear up – Dan is as much an “owner” of Anthem Today as I am. His writings are an expression of his thoughts and feelings and are not necessarily mine.

    I cannot stop him from posting as much as he cannot stop me from my articles in our magazine, The Vegas Voice.

    We have been together nearly 8 years and have learned that before we engage in a “heated pillow talk discussion” we ask ourselves: “Is it worth it?” The answer in his writings for me is “no.”

    I do however want readers to understand that any and all of his future postings is without my assistance, and perhaps approval.


    Gentle Facts v. Outraged Opinions – Part II

    By: SCA resident, Dan Roberts

    In my previous post I congratulated Jim Coleman for his outrage against the “system,” his racist neighbors (you know those favoring Trump in his re-election campaign) the SCA Board of Directors and of sole importance to yours truly, the president of the board – my Rana.

    For you see, this whole absurd and ridiculous episode was started by Rana for simply following the rules.

    Coleman’s initial letter (as elaborated in Part I) expressing his personal beliefs and thoughts was emailed to AAHC members. It was also published on the club’s website for anyone to read.

    When Rana received complaints about the letter (as well as Coleman’s subsequent email), she made the “mistake” of doing the right thing and adhering to SCA policy.

    No one (including Coleman) has ever disagreed or disputed that club activities, questions, issues, etc. are addressed by the Community Lifestyle Committee (CLC). No matter how “important” the concern, when it comes to SCA clubs, the issue goes to CLC – not the SCA Board of Directors, not the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED), not the Henderson Police… or even the FBI.

    Although Rana agreed with the complaining responses that the Coleman correspondence was “racially-charged”, her only request/question was to ask the CLC whether Coleman’s correspondence violated SCA policy of using club email list for non-club business.

    Let’s be clear – she did not demand (or ask) for an investigation, or that immediate action be taken against Coleman, or that Coleman (or the AAHC) be banned from the Association… or anything else. She simply forward the Coleman letter to CLC chairman Bob Goldfried and asked if it was proper.

    Chairman Goldfried responded to Rana’s inquiry with a “thanks for getting the CLC involved at this early stage…because from an organizational standpoint the CLC should function on it.”

    He sent a number of questions/requests to Rana including the one that will live in SCA infamy: “Can you please share with me a representative sample of some of the messages of complaint you received. You don’t need to disclose the sender, but I would like to get a feel for the kinds of complaints you got.”

    For reasons that still “shock” me, Rana complied. (As an aside, Rana has never complied with any of my requests, so whatever tactics, persuasive abilities and/or cologne Goldfried has, I gotta get me some – but I digress).

    Now instead of a one-sentence response (“Yes, it is allowed” or “No it is not”) the CLC rendered a seven page determination. In part and of prime importance:

    “As the CLC sees it, the only issue for it to decide is whether sending the letters to the AAHC membership by use of the membership list violates the CCC&Rs. That is the issue Rana referred to us and is the only issue in the judgement of the CLC that is within its jurisdiction.”

     The CLC concluded that Coleman’s letters did not violate the CCC&Rs.

    What did Rana do when she received the determination? Did she:

    1. Demand that the CLC reverse its position? – NO
    2. Demand that such determination be appealed? – NO
    3. Demand that the CLC members be rounded up, placed in solitary confinement and tortured until they change their decision? – NO
    4. Demand that angry SCA neighbors form a posse and grab their pitchforks and torches and march on CLC or the AAHC. – NO

    What occurred was that Rana’s question was ASKED, ANSWERED & ACCEPTED. As far as she was concerned (and anybody else with a rational and fair mind), it was the end of story.

    And why wouldn’t it be?

    But no – this was now the beginning of the war of words, threats and demands, not by the AAHC (note: this entire sordid episode was never about the club) but by Coleman. Thus, started the name-calling attacks and threats against Rana and SCA.

    The worse part (to be elaborated in subsequent posts) is that Coleman’s bullying actions worked.


    Martin Winger

    Why is this still a continuing issue caused by one person who seems to have an ongoing problem with his emotions?

    I for one would love to see an outside resource such as “Candace Owens or Larry Elder” be invited and on stage debate and “air” the issues.

    I’m sorry for his difficulties he has faced during his life, but the mentioned people surely could give him another focus.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.