Re: [ga] No Members?
Wednesday, April 04, 2001, 1:41:44 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2001-04-04 13:07:05 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> Just because you, who is admittedly not as familiar with
>> California law as many of the other participants in the
>> discussion, do not agree with the positions being put forward,
>> does not mean that you are justified in painting a relevant
>> discussion as whining.
> William, how about arguing your cause instead of attacking others ad
Actually I was responding to your assertion that those who were
discussing this were "Whiners".
And you have the gall to use the words "Ad hominem" at me?
I think you need to look at yourself before you start telling others
how to act, Thomas.
> - Why does the California code specifically talk about a SPECIFIC
> PROVISION IN THE BYLAWS OR ARTICLES
That is only ONE way in which a statutory member may be recognized.
Read it in context with the surrounding provisions. Membership may
also be asserted based on other grounds, as was already discussed.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html