Re[2]: [ga] No Members?

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Thomas,

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
> hominem?

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.


-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html