On request of Sockman and Ochalek, at the end of the July club meeting, a discussion was held between me and De Florio, Flager, Ochalek, Parrott, and Sockman about the issues arising from the June meeting.
Having already decided to quit, I did not really pay that much attention to the various views and opinions, merely noting that none had the slightest indication of any of the five suggesting that the affair at the previous meeting had been anything other than highly ethical and well mannered.
I started up with a list of statements to verify that the facts at the last meeting were indeed as I understood them to be. The statements were:
The ones that received some dispute were numbers 4, 5, and 7. I had a hard time following the thinking about 4 and 5, but apparently, the five were trying to argue that no theft of resources was implied. In any case, it was finally De Florio who, in a different context, confirmed that indeed the discussion came directly out of the newspaper article about the state clamping down on nonstate use of resources, and the fear that this might include the club web page. (Something the participants seemed to deny earlier.)
About 7, apparently some members are sufficiently unaware of computer operations that they not consider backing up a normal procedure. Since even the most computer-illiterate secretaries in our college backup their files, I had some difficulty relating to it. But it may well be true that some of the five have indeed so little knowledge of computers. In any case, together the five had enough knowledge about backups to worry about it during the meeting I missed, so the point of the precise knowledge of each of the five has little importance to me.
An exchange of opinions was next. Some opinions already emerged during the verification of the 8 facts above.
It was noted that at the meeting the web page had been praised as being good. That does not justify implying I am a thief and an incompetent, going behind my back, and ordering me around, so I ignored it as true but nonrelevant.
Parrot loudly argued that being called a possible thief "is not good enough!". Apparently, in his view I could only complain if I was called a thief for absolute sure, and then only if the word thief was explicitly used. Complaining about anything else would be a hostile attitude and he was not going to stand for any hostile attitude from me. (Anyway, his liberal views about what can be said properly did simplify writing my conclusion.)
Parrot brought up the issue that the PRESIDENT of the club was unaware where the club web pages were located, from his tone of voice obviousy blaming me for not informing rather than Ochalek for not asking. I noted that any competent computer operator could have figured it out in a second.
For example, to see where the page you are now reading is located, right click anywhere in the page. Then in Netscape, select "View frame info", or in Internet Explorer, select "Properties." Note that the computer node it is on is called www.bigbendmiataclub.org, and then check its physical location using something like "nslookup www.bigbendmiataclub.org" or "tracert www.bigbendmiataclub.org" in a MS-DOS window. Or, if you have no clue what a "MS-DOS window" is, just go to samspade.org and find out every dirty little secret by simply typing the name in the boxes. Figures, which are the bulk of the space, are even easier; load them in a separate window.
Shortly after this exchange Parrott stormed out of the room. I do not remember what I said at the time, but it was probably something like that I thought calling someone a thief in absentia was unethical. In any case, he left shouting that he did not want to accept my apologies now at all. So it is just as well that he left instead of wasting more time sitting there in false hopes.
I tried to note that on June 27, I had e-mailed I considered the case closed, even without receiving any indication by any of the five that any of their behavior might have been less than ideal, on having spoken my mind. That however De Florio's e-mail a few weeks later reopening the matter and demanding my apologies, threatening to resign if I did not give them, as well as the resulting further abuse by Parrott, finally caused me to draw the line. However, De Florio interrupted me and kept talking through my statements, so I let it be.
De Florio suggested that we exchanged mutual apologies. Apparently, as long as both parties apologize, all is fair and equal in his mind. Since I did not believe that I had anything to apologize for, I refused.
Sockman made some moves into the direction of maybe acknowledging that the web page issue could have been handled in a different way, but De Florio cut in saying that if I was not going to apologize, they were not, so Sockman shut up.
I terminated the discussion, seeing no point in wasting more time, and proceeded to practical matters.
I gave the club the $10 membership fee I had received earlier from Jody Miller, as well as the $25 I had received from selling Ken Ford's speakers to Sockman. There were then some theatrics from Sockman, but although these did use the word thief, they were in a context unrelated to the actual issues (he pretended to steal the $35) and it got no laughs.
The discussion ended with practical issues related to my resignation: transfer of the e-mail list to De Florio and an offer from me for the five to post their view of events next to mine on the web site. De Florio said that as long as I was no longer a member, the club was not going to take orders from me. I explained that this was an offer from me as nonmember to not the club but five members of it, but De Florio stuck to his refusal. I only noted "The record will show the offer was made."