From: Jim Gashel 
Subject: Re: Jamal was voted in
hello harvey:
here you go again.  first you complain about the way that jamal was
expelled in 1991, but you're not sure he shouldn't have been.  now you're
complaining about the way he is being taken back in.  I wonder what it
would take on the part of our national leadership to satisfy you.  you
don't like it that we threw jamal out, but you don't like the way he was
brought back in.  what on earth do you like.  I know you don't like May
Nelson, and it is certainly apparent that you don't much like the nfb (or
at least its leaders) either.  I don't think you think much that is good
about the acb either.  I know I am risking a torant of responses from you,
which I really don't have time to answer, but the only thing I can
understand about your pattern of conduct here is that you want everyone
else to join you in always finding something to complain about.  But,
harvey, most of us on this list are just not going to join you in
constantly finding something to complain about.  we're going to use our
energies on things that are more positive.  I, for one, think it is
positive that we took jamal back as a member.  searcy yuell probably does
too.  this is a good example of heeling old wounds.  are you against doing
that?  
even though I know you will try to do so, please try to refrain from
regailing all of us with another complaining response to this outburst of
mine.  its just that i'm about at the point of hitting the delete key
every time I see your name, because I know your post will be nothing more
than some form of a complaint.  think about it, harvey, this how you drive
people away, not how you build an organization.  
thanks, 
j. g.
On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 hheagy@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> 
> I know about the article as I received the electronic version of
> the Monitor last week and I have heard from the Clantons about a
> meeting held between them, Jamal and President Maurer I think
> over Memorial week end.  I'm not sure of the time frame, but
> I still think it is interested that in 1991 he was expelled
> without even a chance to speak before the convention.  Searcy
> Ewell of Arkansas was the only voting delegate to speak out
> against this.  But now Jamal is voted back in.  I'm not familiar
> with the original issue to comment one way or the other on the
> reasons, but I felt at the time that at least he had the right
> to be heard even if he did do something that warranted expulsion.
> 
> Now he is voted back into the organization after being humiliated by
> the national leadership in 1991.  I still think they should
> apologize to him for what was done.
> 
> I don't know Jamal very well although I have met him, and it is
> even possible that he did not handle things in the best way
> he could have, and I'm glad both sides have resolved their differences, but 
if
> you think about it, what does this say about our leadership?  When they say
> "expel," with only one exception, all delegates vote to
> expel.  But when they say "re-admit," everyone votes to
> re-admit.  Interesting!
> 
> Harvey
> 
> Net-Tamer V 1.09  - Registered
> 
---
---------------