|
In Reply to: what I mean is posted by porceleindoll on April 13, 2005 at 03:15:00:
PD, just to clarify, I have no grudge with you -- I think you're absolutely wonderful.
Jim's advocacy is very public -- something he has done deliberately -- no problem there. He has used these boards to appeal to exmembers to come forward. He has disparaged them also. He has made appeals for money.
This, and reports of inappropriate behaviour on the part of Jim have raised public questions that demand public answers.
These are not unreasonable questions -- they address fundamental issues of accountability and transparency. Advocating for Change 101. These issues need to be addressed publicly so that people can make informed decisions as to whether they want to be associated with Jim's advocacy efforts.
It's really simple and it is not going to go away.
Jim needs to address these questions. With every day that he delays, the unease among the exmember community grows and the rumors take deeper root. I'm sure you hear lots of them.
If Jim cannot get over these preliminary hurdles then it is my guess that he will not be very successful in recruiting exers to assist in the media and legal investigations. People will be looking for ways to circumvent him, rather than co-operate with him.
It's sad, because it does not have to be this way.
