Thank you to all of you who took the time to vote in our most recent Board of Directors election. Approximately 650 members took part in this past election.
This is the results of the vote tally:
ELECTED
Judy Fiestal - 310
Maire Cullen-Gilmore - 299
Marty Soehrman - 273
Michael Papadopoulos - 235
NOT ELECTED
Nia Lewis - 224
Chris Andreae - 219
Paula Small - 208
Mimi Villarqui - 171
Keller Henry - 159
Scott Forrester - 146
Brian Stevens - 122
Glen Owen - 106
When it came time to file annual forms with the FCC, it came to the attention of the Nominating Committee of the KBOO Board of Directors that one of the individuals recently elected to the board at our September annual meeting is not a US citizen. Federal law allows us to only have 2 non-US citizen board members and no more, and we already have two board members who are not US citizens elected in prior elections who still have time on their 3-year terms.
At this time, Michael Papadopoulos, who is not a US citizen, will not be able to be seated as a member of the Board of Directors due to this regulation. The next board meeting is Monday October 26 at 6 pm. This issue will be on the agenda for discussion.
Comments
Legal text, please......
Can you post the text of this federal law that you're talking about, so that we can see where it says what you're saying?One thing I do know for sure is that discrimination law says that people who are similarly situated shall be treated the same, or else kboo will be guilty of violating anti-discrimination law. All three of the board members in question are similarly situated, in that they were all elected by the membership to be on the board. Not a single one of them is different from the rest. Of course they're different in the sense of diversity, but in the most relevent measure---being that they're elected board members---they are the same.Should there turn out to be a valid federal law which prohibits us to two citizens of other countries, then perhaps the fairest thing we can do is to run another election just for these three, to determine which of the three will stay.We must not forget that it's the membership---and ultimately, the public---that we serve. We absolutely must honor the public and the membership, and we must never try to decieve them by omitting information, skewing the facts, etc. The only democracy that works is an informed democracy, and everything else is just bullies playing end games......
Communications Act
<p>The statutory text in the Communications Act:<br>Section 310 [47 USC §310]. Limitation on Holding and Transfer of Licenses<br> (a) The station license required under this Act shall not be granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative thereof.<br> (b) No broadcast or common carrier or aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station license shall be granted to or held by --<br> (1) any alien or the representative of any alien;<br> (2) any corporation organized under the laws of any foreign government;<br> (3) any corporation of which more than one-fifth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or representative thereof or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country<br><br> </p>
Removal of memberelected director
I have no personal problem being UN-anonymous in this interchange - but I also support the right ofan author to anonymity in an situation where KBOO members are being banned from the station for any reason or for no reason.I take it badly that Bill Michtom seems to be seeing insults in what folk have written. Bill gas no greater legal credentials than I do, and a good deal fewer credentials than I do in standing up before a judge to argue a case.Here I’ll say that the FCC decision in the “Carrifesta” case - circulated to all the KBOO Directors to prove a point - has nothing to do with a membership non profit like KBOO., The FCC was dealing with an organization with zero members and 6 directors - and the FCC rule of 20% that one non-citizen director was OK and two was too many - has been applied rationally and has not been appealed.But the FCC has never ruled about the KBOO situation where ownership of the Foundation rests with KBOO’s 5 thousand plus members. OPB is a simple example where the non-profit is “owned” by the directors and the members have no say - that is not true for KBOO.Michael Papadopoulos
The text of the decision disproves Michael's assertions
Note: I use "sic" below when I quote something that has a typo. I do this only because I don't want anyone to think I have changed the quote in any way.Michael P typed: "I also support the right of an author to anonymity in an (sic) situation where KBOO members are being banned from the station for any reason or for no reason."This is a statement with no evidence behind it. That is what I call, at best, bad manners. This is the same thing that others, anonymously, have done in this and other threads. Michael, I give you great credit for making your statements out in the open, as opposed to so many others who don't (unlike you) have the courage of their convictions. Michael P. typed: "Bill gas (sic) no greater legal credentials than I do, and a good deal fewer credentials than I do in standing up before a judge to argue a case." Michael, you have no idea whether I have such experience or not, so stating what you do is illegitimate.Finally, here are the relevant statements from the link provided earlier in this thread (emphasis and items in [brackets] are mine):Carifesta argues that the staff is “simply wrong on the law.” It states that it is a registered Florida non-profit corporation and has no capital stock.Carifesta contends that, although ownership and voting interests are considered independently, “unless there is an investment in return for an expectance to share in the profits through voting or non-voting stock or a limited partner's membership, there is no investor and there is no ownership under either prong.” No board member, according to Carifesta, has an “equity interest” in a non-profit, non-stock corporation, and the only measurement of a cognizable interest in a noncommercial entity for Section 310(b) purposes is the board member's vote measured against the total number of board members. In this case, with five Board members and one voting alien, only 20 percent of Carifesta’s voting interests are held by aliens. Carifesta asserts that the Commission should ignore the presence of Mr. Davis on its governing Board because, due to his agreement “to recuse himself from any matters affecting the LPFM station,” he will have no voting interest. Thus, Carifesta maintains that its ownership structure complies with Section 310(b)(3) of the Act. [snip][The following demonstrates that Michael's basic argument—that Carifesta is differently situated that KBOO—doesn't stand up to the reasoning used here.]We recognize that many entities that will hold LPFM licenses will be non-stock corporations or other non-stock entities, and that non-stock entities do not have “owners” in the traditional sense. As the Commission has explained, the specific citizenship requirements of Section 310(b) reflect a deliberate judgment on the part of Congress to prevent undue foreign influence in broadcasting. Thus, for purposes of determining whether a non-stock LPFM applicant or licensee complies with the statutory foreign ownership requirements, we will first consider the citizenship of those individuals who have the ability, comparable to that of a traditional owner, to influence or control the licensee. In making these determinations we will be guided by Commission precedent.The Commission has long treated directors of non-stock, non-profit corporations as principals “because they hold comparable relationships of personal interest and responsibility.” As observed by the staff, Commission precedent holds that entities must demonstrate compliance with Section 310(b) of the Act on both voting and “ownership” grounds such that a principal’s agreement to recuse himself or herself from matters relating to the station will not be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Section 310(b) of the Act if that principal’s ownership interest exceeds the statutory limit. Because Carifesta’s Petition fails to show a material error or omission in the original decision and did not raise additional facts unknown or not existing until after Carifesta’s last opportunity to present such matters it will be denied.The premise that the membership of KBOO holds "comparable relationships of personal interest and responsibility” to the board is just not the case. As another (unfortunately anonymous) poster noted, "the board voted on a budget. I wasn't asked to vote. The board voted to replace the internal server. I wasn't asked to vote. The board is charged with supervising personell (sic) decisions, and I am not."Michael responds with his claim that the 5000 members have control equal to the board, but this is disingenuous, as the quote immediately above should make clear to anyone who is more invested in the truth than being "right."As to whether the general membership or the board is in charge (other than changes to or new bylaws), here are excerpts from the bylaws:"The Board of Directors may, at any time, change the location of the registered office and the person designated as the registered agent. The corporation may also have other offices at such places as the Board of Directors may fix by resolution.""(a) Paid-up members are those persons who have contributed annual membership dues as determined by the Board of Directors.""The Board of Directors shall designate the place for any annual or special meeting."General Powers. All corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the affairs of the corporation managed under the direction of, the Board of Directors.Regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held at a time and place to be determined by the Board of Directors."the Board of Directors, its committees and other committees created by it may hold closed sessions to consider matters relating to individual employees, proprietary information, litigation and other matters requiring the confidential advice of counsel, commercial or financial information obtained from a person on a privileged or confidential basis, or the purchase of property or services whenever the premature exposure of such purchase would compromise the business interests of the corporation."Michael, your arguments just don't comply with the reality of our bylaws.
The recent election and anonymous, unpleasant posts
Hi, Hi!:> Can you post the text of this federal law > that you're talking about, so that we can > see where it says what you're saying?The relevant section of 47 U.S.C. §310:(3) any corporation of which more than one-fifth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or representative thereof or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country;So, the operative phrase is "voted by aliens." With a 12-member board, more than 1/5 is more than two.> One thing I do know for sure is that> discrimination law says that people who> are similarly situated shall be treated> the same, or else kboo will be guilty of> violating anti-discrimination law. The whole discrimination thing has no relevance, so your "similarly situated" stuff is also irrelevant. As an aside, however, they are not "similarly situated" in that Michael ran after the two others were already Board members.> Should there turn out to be a valid> federal law which prohibits us to two> citizens of other countries, then perhaps> the fairest thing we can do is to run> another election just for these three, to> determine which of the three will stay.Two things here: 1) the premise that there isn't valid law implicit in your wording is insulting to Judy and the rest of the Board, and you provide no reason to support that assumption except, perhaps, bad manners. 2) There is no justification for your suggestion that the election should be held again: The two people who are on the Board were elected before Michael even ran. If the Board had realized before the election that Michael was, under the law, ineligible to run, he would have been informed at that time. Then he wouldn't have run at all. The only case he has is if the interpretation of the clause from 47 USC §310 above is wrong. Michael was the last of the people who had enough votes in this most recent election. So, under the law, if there is anyone who is being deprived of a rightful seat on the Board, it is Nia Lewis.> We must not forget that it's the> membership---and ultimately, the public---> that we serve. We absolutely must honor> the public and the membership, and we> must never try to decieve [sic] them by> omitting information, skewing the facts,> etc. The only democracy that works is an> informed democracy, and everything else> is just bullies playing end games.....Once again, you provide no reason to take the attitude that something nefarious is happening, while you claim to be defending the membership. Additionally, as I have mentioned before with other insulting blog posts, you don't even have the courtesy or, apparently, the courage of your "convictions" required to use your own name. You appear to be the one who is trying to deceive (note the spelling).Bill Michtom
Removal of Michael Papadopoulos from the Board
Bill Michtom says of an anonymous KBOO member contributor to this moderatedblog:"1) the premise that there isn't valid law implicit in your wording is insulting to Judy and the rest of the Board, and you provide no reason to support that assumption except, perhaps, bad manners." To this I ask Bill why he feels the need to move the discussion away from the realm of rational analysis and response to a fighting allegation of insult and bad manners. Those of us who are knowledgeable in the meaning and analysis of words written in English have the right to read the FCC's published decisions with or without the assistance of a lawyer; we can report that the FCC "Carifesta" decision -- circulated as good authority to the KBOO Board -- was made specifically in respect to a six-member nonprofit where all the members were directors and each director had an equal share of the total power of control - namely one sixth of the total control power over that nonprofit.If KBOO's twelve member board enjoys the total control power over the KBOO Foundation (one twelfth of the total power going to each director) there might be a legal basis for decidpng that the Carifesta decision controls KBOO.But there exists no legal decision that KBOO's members in a five-thousand-strong nonprofit have no power to control the organization. Nor is there any legal decision that KBOO's members have stripped themselves of their own control power by creating a Board of 12 directors.If Bill knows of any such decision, it would be an act of good manners for him to share his knowledge - it's not cassified information.Michael
OK, I can read the FCC Carifesta decision too
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4475A1.pdfHmm, I'm not a lawyer either, but I am educated enough to read and see that ...The FCC in this decision made it clear that the decision applies to a governing board, independent of the corporation's "ownership". And the FCC made it plainly clear they understand that the ruling regarding 20% foreign ownership of stock (in fuzzy theory all of us members) doesn't make sense in a non profit, where the "owners" (members) have no expectation of financial gain. So the FCC made it perfectly clear that these rules apply to non profit controlling boards, no matter what the citizenship statistics of the contributors (us members) are.Let's see, the board voted on a budget. I wasn't asked to vote. The board voted to replace the internal server. I wasn't asked to vote. The board is charged with supervising personell decisions, and I am not. Folks, the board controls KBOO, not us ... as described in the bylaws. It is a form of representative democracy, far from perfect, but in order to have the FM signal we gotta comply with the law. As to if it was convenient at this time to realize that we can't have three resident aliens on the board? I don't have a dog in that fight. I do know however, as KBOO's license is (I believe) still not officially renewed ... this is not the time to mess with the law and potentially get KBOO off the air. How about we breathe a little, and let the organization get back to work? There will be future elections, and if 20% aliens aren't enough for you, then go to the FCC and get the rule changed.
How to read the Carrifesta decision
Dear Anonymouse: The Carrifesta decision was made regarding a six-member nonprofit under a 20% rule which allowed one of those six members to be an non-citizen but not two.KBOO's members number a bit over 5000. They control who is a director and what bylaws are in force. They share 100% of the control of the Foundation, with each member, director or other , having an identical share one-five-thousandth share"Carrifesta" would apply to KBOO if KBOO's noncitizen members were to exceed the 20% level of about one-thousand. The FCC is interested in limiting the number of noncitizen member-owners with power to control and influence the Foundation -- I'd cite the exact words except that I trust your ability to read. Meanwhile the correct thing for KBOO to do is to have the FCC lawyer state which FCC decision about non-citizens applies to KBOO. At least whoever speaks with KBOO's FCC lawyer should learn how to question authority on behalf of the membership(I know from personal discussion that KBOO"s long-time FCC lawyer, John Crigler, knew of no such decision applying to KBOO under the current FCC regulations -- meanwhile KBOO's decision to remove me is based on hot-air and has no legal validity.)Michael
Since we're having fun being
Since we're having fun being amatuer attorneys ..."As observed by the staff, Commission precedent holds that entities must demonstrate compliance with Section 310(b) of the Act on both voting and “ownership” grounds such that a principal’s agreement to recuse himself or herself from matters relating to the station will not be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Section 310(b) of the Act if that principal’s ownership interest exceeds the statutory limit."Let's see. This says that even if one member of their board agrees not to vote on issues regarding the radio station, that simply based on ownership grounds they would still be out of compliance. It seems to imply that in their proposed solution their board (seperate test based on voting grounds) might be in compliance ... so long as the extra alien agrees not to have a vote.So Michael ... are you offering to be seated on the board without a vote?
Furthermore....
As far as the three current board members who are citizens of other countries goes......One of them has missed three meetings, which, according to kboo policy, means that she can be removed from the board......Another's membership with kboo has lapsed, and according to kboo policy, board members must be kboo foundation members.....The third has no such infringements under his belt. The reason why he's being targeted as Judy has shown in her letter, is because he was elected to "return [kboo] to inclusivenessness and member-based democracy." Judy, on the other hand, ran for the board specifically to work against those who stand for inclusiveness and member-based democracy. We are an organization which is bound to a law which states: "The Board of Directors shall be responsible for insuring that an adequate number of candidates representative of the diversity of the corporation's members are nominated." Our mission is to strive for diversity, and we certainly use diversity as a tool to get other people to donate money to us. As quoted above, diversity is chrystallized into law at KBOO.So why the campaign to eliminate differing points of view? To especially eliminate those who ARE walking their talk, following our mission and our laws and standing up for diversity???????The sooner we fix and heal ourselves from this ethnic cleansing crap, the better off we are.And besides what the anti-diversity campaign is doing to ourselves, we have no right to take the public trust and interest hostage in this personal issue magnified and gone haywire. Even if we have no shame for ourselves, we ought to have shame for what we have done to others, and have the dignity and tact to step out of the way.
Dear Bill, According to
Dear Bill, According to you: "Michael was, under the law, ineligible to run [for the board]...."Please don't keep that "law" a secret, we're dying to know where you get your ideas! Please, do tell, we do so love a good story!!..........The Anonymous folks....we're such a large group, transcending the globe as well as history in so many famous quotes by "Anon."......(Sigh) What we say is so important that we are recorded without judgement as to the source......It's such a pity that you would refute us and all of our history “for the good” of KBOO. Is this what you have to stoop to now to create a new version of the "haves" and the "have-nots" in order to justify what you're trying so hard to deny? Shouldn't the anonymous have as much of a right to free speech/expression as the rest of the humans? Damn, I was kinda thinking that community radio was a leader in the call for free speech/expression...... Maybe you're right, though, and its a matter of rational security to know who has stars upon thars!!! Yes, we can't let anyone into KBOO who is different!!! We should use our donated diversity radio money to create a belly-button security checkpoint at the door.............Heck, our outreach department has already been eliminated and $18k-$45k+ has already been committed to a lawsuit defending KBOO's "right" to decide who is a "have" or a "have-not"...........If you think that free speech is unpleasant.......then that's YOUR problem, and not KBOO's.Sincerely,Yawning THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE - Anonymous
Hi Bilk..... Ar we suposed
Hi Bilk.....Ar we suposed too feal bad abowt bad spelin noww, two? Duz that maek us liss credible? Wat is ur poynt????U seam too be sayin that ommissunz....an skewd facts....an such deceat......iz NOT a cayse four nefaeryusniss...........Wow. DID EWE USED TWO WERK FOR DA TEXAS PRIZON SISTIM???Blown Away
I just realized that in
I just realized that in addition to the minimum $18k-$45k+ that some people have decided is a fixed expense to fight diversity, democracy, and accountability at kboo..............we will also have to pay the costs to the other side of losing the suit. Can kboo really afford to bully it's own members???And the more everyone keeps denying what's going on and turning a blind eye, as if this is all a game which will just go away, the deeper everyone gets dragged down into the abyss.Better get busy having more secret meetings and altering public records, etc.
"The statutory text in the
"The statutory text in the Communications Act........No broadcast...radio station license shall be granted to or held by....any corporation of which more than one-fifth of the capital stock [emphasis mine] is.......voted by aliens or their representatives...."Now shiver me dandies, but doesn't this say that this is all about capital stock (money) and not about people? English language analyists: Am I right in saying that the one-fifth qualifier is attached to capital stock and not to people? That there is no "limitation" placed on the number of "aliens"???In other words, if we supported diversity by staffing our entire board with citizens of other countries, we could do this freely as long as such board limited their voting on financial matters to one-fifth of our cash? That, for example, if our total budget was $100,000.....our all-alien board could have a say in $20, 000 of that money, but not any more than that? That the finance committee would decide what to do with the rest of the $80,000 (and of course we would democratically elect those finance committee representatives)?Maybe my "diverse" interpretation too diverse for some people's blood?
reply to Mr. or Ms. Thinking
Ahhh. You're reading the text of the act, rather than the FCC decision regarding interpretation of that act. Congress give enormous lattitude to federal agencies to come up with the actual rules that implement statutes. You need to read the decision, not just the statute.In the decision, the FCC addresses clearly the difference for non-profits between contributors (members) and voting boards. I don't know about you, but KBOO never sent me a stock certificate when I paid my dues. Good thing too, because if this dispute was over 20% "ownership", then several things would be necessary that I (and I think most KBOO members) would object to ...1) If membership was "capital" stock, then voting at a membership meeting would be proportional to the amount each member had paid (like shares of voting "stock"). That would go over like a lead balloon ...2) If as you and Michael suggest, 20% of the membership of a non-profit was the actual test (instead of the controlling board), then might we have to put another checkbox on the membership/pledge forms .... US Citizen, Yes or No? Now wouldn't that kick up a ruckus? I don't believe that the FCC asks KBOO for such statistics, and I hope they never do!Should KBOO be able to as you seem to suggest, support diversity by staffing our entire board with citizens of other countries? I'm not convinced that the current FCC rules are necessary, or the best that they could be ... but that is another discussion for another day. However I read your last suggestions .... as not so much promoting "diversity" but as being "fanciful".
reply to Mr. or Ms. Thinking
Ahhh. You're reading the text of the act, rather than the FCC decision regarding interpretation of that act. Congress give enormous lattitude to federal agencies to come up with the actual rules that implement statutes. You need to read the decision, not just the statute.In the decision, the FCC addresses clearly the difference for non-profits between contributors (members) and voting boards. I don't know about you, but KBOO never sent me a stock certificate when I paid my dues. Good thing too, because if this dispute was over 20% "ownership", then several things would be necessary that I (and I think most KBOO members) would object to ...1) If membership was "capital" stock, then voting at a membership meeting would be proportional to the amount each member had paid (like shares of voting "stock"). That would go over like a lead balloon ...2) If as you and Michael suggest, 20% of the membership of a non-profit was the actual test (instead of the controlling board), then might we have to put another checkbox on the membership/pledge forms .... US Citizen, Yes or No? Now wouldn't that kick up a ruckus? I don't believe that the FCC asks KBOO for such statistics, and I hope they never do!Should KBOO be able to as you seem to suggest, support diversity by staffing our entire board with citizens of other countries? I'm not convinced that the current FCC rules are necessary, or the best that they could be ... but that is another discussion for another day. However I read your last suggestions .... as not so much promoting "diversity" but as being "fanciful".
You're wack and on crack. 1)
You're wack and on crack. 1) My comment about the FCC rule was regarding voting on our cash, not about owning it: "'is.......voted by aliens...'" You're free to talk about owning cash all you want, but it doesn't apply to my comment as you have it laid out.2) Your idea that I suggested anything about 20% of the membership is what's "fanciful." That came from your vivid, if not chemically enhanced, imagination. Nice work. However, since all members are equal in our status as owner/operators...you do raise a good point. So, if the KBOO board wants to send out consistent messages----as it has already professed---and be in compliance with the FCC---as it has already professed---then the board would have to-----transparently, democratically, and inclusively---make sure that no more than 20% of our members were non-citizens. A mighty ruckus indeed!3) My fanciful ideas about diversity at KBOO?.....yeah, "Great spirits have always encountered violent oppostion from mediocre minds.” Albert EinsteinSeriously, try reading! "Once you learn to read, you will be forever free." Frederick Douglass:)
too bad the conversation goes nowhere ...
"You're wack and on crack. " ... "Great spirits have always encountered violent oppostion from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein" , "Try reading"While writing these few posts, I wondered how long it would take for this to descend into personal attacks. Sad. Of course, due to my desperate lack of diversity ... I could be missing that these comments are some sort of compliment! "Fanciful" in my post is a gentle smile to soften my criticism of your post. I decided earlier to see if it is possible to have an actual discussion of facts within the realm of KBOO. It's not clear this has been worth the time. And no, no chemicals have been needed for my imagination, I'll leave it up to the readers to decide if this is good or not.Feel free to call the FCC and get some advice from their staff what the ruling means for KBOO. Remember, ask them if a non-stock non-profit corporation applying to renew it's FM license can have more than 20% aliens serving on the board of directors. Heck, post the answer here when you can.Meanwhile, there's a radio station to run, programs to produce, and life goes on.
Conversations based on fake
Conversations based on fake facts and not listening ("reading," if the conversation is written) will always go nowhere!Funny, you were hoping that the facts could be discussed and I was hoping the attitudes could be discussed. I think anyone would agree that if simple facts cannot even be agreed upon, then......perhaps if something as simple as that is an obstacle.......then perhaps it's really the underlying attitudes which are an obstacle??I am concerned about whether you were trying so hard to silence opposition that you got sloppy and negligent? Were you thinking "win at all costs"??? Because our radio station is under the influence of those regressive attitudes. And no one wins in those cowardly, fear-based games...Where fear-based attitudes really take a dive though, is when they take over their host and make the attitude-holder do things like strategize against diversity. Then the problem morphs into a new animal, as the aggression becomes intentional.But setting that aside and getting back to the "radio station to run, programs to produce, and life goes on" realm... When you know that our radio station is spending $18k-$45k"+" of our money to fight diversity.....does it make you want to bury your head in the sand and hope the station is still intact when you come up for air.....or does it make you want to do something more pro-active? And if you take the first approach----which facts is this based on?
Pathetic Epitath
It's sad when simply pointing out facts in a FCC ruling is distorted by another into "attitude", "silencing opposition", "win at all costs", "regressive ... cowardly, fear-based games", "strategize against diversity" ... This is the strategy of someone who knows if they contact the FCC he/she will not get the answer they want ... so go after the messenger instead.I am not on the board, I am not in the midst of this governance fight, I am not on staff, nor am I against diversity. I have done nothing other than observe this bizzare election cycle, vote, and marvel that KBOO functions at all amidst this unproductive acrimony.My awareness of the lawsuit is that it was filed on the basis of a member of the board being removed for behavior in the station that violated station policy. So correct me if I'm wrong, but the lawsuit and the cost to the station predates the decision not to seat Michael on the board.Funny how you make assumtions about my attitude, and then denounce my so-called attitude (as you create it) as undesireable, based solely on my ability to disagree with you on the meaning of words in a legal document. And then to turn your self-created image of my so-called attitude into intentional strategizing against diversity? That's either a huge chip on your shoulders, or paranoia. I sincerely hope it is the first.Good Luck.Good bye.
Woah Cowgirl/boy! No matter
Woah Cowgirl/boy! No matter how much attitude you can dish out, it still doesn't change the facts!!! FACT: The whole FCC phone call thing was your baby and your baby alone--take ownership of it, please. Don't try to dump it on me.FACT: Your ideas about the lawsuit are sketchy and convoluted. Facts are clearly not important to you, and instead you use attitude to fill in the gaps. Attitude is fantastic, but never in cases where there are no facts to support it. FACT: The attitude discussion sprung from your disregard for simple facts---and that alone. Once again I refer to the idea of "reading." Read the post, oh animated one, and this fact will be magically revealed to you. Your disagreement is wholly welcome ant totally supported---based on facts---but your bad attitude: is NOT welcome!Let's fact it, "facts" are the "A, B, C's" of discussions like this, about the boatload of cash that KBOO is shelling out in our name to fight against diversity. But clearly facts are being ignored and substituted with magical thinking. Forgive me for having an opinion, but I would guess that that's bad and a little bit crazy.I think you got caught burying your head in the sand and you didn't like being caught. So, you had to do something about being uncomfortable---you had to "fight or flight," and you chose, "flight."Great lift-off. I just hope you have a jumbo-jet that can carry the baggage.