Now before anyone goes taking any sides - this is a welcome and thoughtful discourse onefreeman and I are having here - nothing more.

There were a couple of points I wanted to address. One, the issue of "where was the angst last (pick a month)"? My answer: irrelevant. OK, we were as a communnity dense, lazy, busy, shy, apathetic - whatever. The point is, that when the vast majority saw the consequence of this inaction, they responded in a big way. The situation has everyone's attention NOW. So let's address it NOW. I won't say anything as trite as we can't rewrite the past - OK, yes I will.

In negotiations, if I believed that lines in the sand meant much or that it was "too late", geez - half my deals would fall apart. To let a good deal go undone or a problem go unsolved because you didn't notice it was there to do earlier is malpractice. You just have to work harder, faster, make concessions, whatever. But forge ahead you do.

As to the issue of my use of the term 'ad hoc subset': I merely meant an extemporized, situationally-based group that will change identities with every new person someone doesn't like or every situation that is meaningful only to a select few. Face it - there are what? 500 people registered here? And there are what - 150 truly active ones? And of those there are what - 75 or 100 who are rallying around this particular issue? So by definition it's a subset. I didn't mean to establish any personal characterization in the use of that term. And just because it's an ad hoc subset's opinion doesn't invalidate that opinion. Remember - I'm in that ad hoc subset too

I'm being as non-emotional in this as possible - as is my training. Randy owns this. Even if you think you could ("get rid of OZ or else me and all my friends are outta here and you've got jack") - you hope you never have to get what you want by brute force. Those kind of deals come back and bite you in the .... And if you lose - well, you just lose.

In Randy's position, I would have concerns over precedents and sustainable policies. OK - then let's give him policies and actions that work for us AND we believe should be acceptable to him - and give him the benefit of the doubt as to his motivations.

If you're disappointed Randy didn't come to certain conclusions independently and take actions you would deem obvious, is that reason to do nothing at all now? Do we just throw up our hands and say "those were the days, my friend"?

I maintain there's a settlement to do here - that's probably best conducted privately. But it is the community that must drive a reasonable approach to evolving this board. Take a single reasonable proposal - e.g. a term sheet - to Randy and get his response.

I mean no offense when I say that to do that, we must set aside our personal angst, anger, and axes, and participate in something constructive and forward -looking.

I may be wasting my time. In the absence of support in this concept, I will have no alternative but to accept the default evolution to FT rather than participate in a community-driven evolution. For I think surely we all recognize this is resulting in an evolution - whether we desire it or not. You can either let it happen TO you, or you can drive it in a direction that's acceptable to you.

I for one would be willing to establish a meeting - perhaps when we're in NY - perhaps before - a business meeting - for just this purpose. All comers welcome.

onefreeman: I have tried to email you but I keep getting it kicked back - could you email me w/ an alternate email address? Thanks..

[This message has been edited by svpii (edited 03-03-2001).]