[Trolls} Received the holy grail and are silent

You have a reason.

You simply refuse.

Jerry

Question yourself.

Question TRA leaders.

Once again Ray, I was kicked out for my RMR posts. Nothing else. So how can you say that clim is false.

Why do YOU think I was kicked out?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Which posts? Do you have copies? Do you even know which posts?

As I said before, I think you were kicked out for the CONTENTS of your posts. There is no way you were kicked out just for posting to this forum.

Hey a real einstein here!!! Obviously it was the contents. I mean DUH. Ever hear of freedom of speech?

So why do you claim Bob is wrong?

Okay, Einstein, here goes...

Freedom of speech relates to actions that the government may take against you. It in no way pertains to actions that a corporation may take against you.

If you don't like Microsoft, and claim that Microsoft is killing babies, then you could be sued by Microsoft for defamation. If you were a Microsoft employee, Microsoft could discharge you for actions detrimental to their business.

The same is true in regards to TRA (like it or not). The BOD has a DUTY to keep the corporate entity 'alive', as it were, and if they deem that someones actions, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, are detrimental to the corporation, then they may (and should!) take whatever actions are a) within their power, and b) they deem reasonable, to protect the corporate entity.

If Bob was bad-mouthing TRA, EVEN IF TRUE, and the BOD takes a 'reasonable' action to protect the corporate entity, then they are doing exactly what they are SUPPOSED to do. One possible example (that I've lived through, by the way, in another organization) was that a previous board had not properly filed some tax paperwork. While we attempted to correct those problems in the best legal way possible, it would have been detrimental to the organization to make this a 'public' issue at that point in time, and if someone had made a big issue of it at the time, we may well have decided to remove that individual. Now, I personally don't believe that kind of action is wise, or 'the best' course of action, but I can defend it as 'reasonable'.

So, now that we've clarified that "freedom of speech" has no bearing here, what else would you like to add?

David Erbas-White

In the Tripoli example the members are removed because they TRA have no intention of addressing the issue, much less correcting it, even though there are known (mutually agreed as occuring) crimes and torts occuring.

According to your own posts a crime has not occurred until there is a conviction.

Who was convicted?

"Mutually agreed as occuring"? If you mean, Bob and yours conjecture and opinion, then no, that's not evidence.

Here's what you (and perhaps Bob) don't get...

The BOD is elected by the members to be the 'arbiters' of what is good for the corporation. Much like a jury, they have the final say. If you DON'T LIKE what they do, your choices are simple: a) vote them out, b) quit (and possibly form another group), or c) put up with it.

David Erbas-White

That can't possibly be right because it doesn't support Jerry's position. (Doggie on bottom)

Hey Jerry, what's the "holy grail"? Where is it? Why the continued silence on this subject?

It's with the Mosaic

His tounge got stuck in a zipper

But if they were actually killing babies and you were bringing it to light?

Protecting the corprate intity because something detrimental was disclosed is completely bogus. Ultimately I guess the membership just does not care.

I disagree. If something was brought to light that was true, the BOD should have fixed the problem instead of goofing around and nailing bob. I just do not got for the protection of the corprate entity to bypass something that is true though unfavorable and even possibly embarrasing. I am tlaking hypothetically here.

Of protecting the corprate entity is more important than doing the right thing, then I guess you are correct. I tend to go with what is right.

So hey did you have a nice 4th?

What makes you they didn't correct it, if indeed there really was a problem?

Also there is often more than one way to correct a problem. Bob seems to be pissed mainly because he wanted his solution imposed on the situation, and won't accept any other solution.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Let's put it this way... if you have a problem in your family, do you take it to them and handle it there, or do you trash them publicly?

Well, there's a right way to do things, and a wrong way.

The mosaic.

But only one way to ignore it.

A CLEAR misstatement of fact.

You are STILL confused.

Here:

In the Tripoli example the members are removed because they TRA have no intention of addressing the issue, much less correcting it, even though there are known (mutually agreed as occuring) crimes and torts occuring.

Here:

In the Tripoli example the members are removed because they TRA have no intention of addressing the issue, much less correcting it, even though there are known (mutually agreed as occuring) crimes and torts occuring.

Here:

In the Tripoli example the members are removed because they TRA have no intention of addressing the issue, much less correcting it, even though there are known (mutually agreed as occuring) crimes and torts occuring.

No I mean with at least one duly elected BOD member being in concurrance. Mutually agreed is a two sided thing Brian. You never learned that.